HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-02 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, DECEMBER 2, 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; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; Paul
Blikstad, Community Development; Steve Griffin and Laurie Craghead, Legal
Counsel; Ken Hales, Corrections; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and four other
citizens.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
Commissioner Luke introduced Will and Gail Evans, owners of Professional
Air, who were recently elected to the Board of the Bend Chamber of
Commerce.
2. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of
Order No. 2009 -072, regarding Remand on an Application from Frank L.
Rencher for a Determination of Whether he is Entitled to Relief under
Ballot Measure 49.
Chair Baney opened the hearing and asked if the Commissioners had any
conflicts of interest, prejudgment, bias or personal interest. Commissioner
Unger said he knows Mr. Rencher personally; Commissioner Luke and Chair
Baney stated that they were involved in the previous Measure 37 hearings.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 1 of 20 Pages
Mr. Griffin said that this is fundamentally different from the Measure 37
hearings. This has to do with the business arrangement between the developer
and the applicant, who entered into an agreement to form REN Development
Corporation. Both contributed to this action. Upon completion and approval of
the subdivision, the lots were to be sold off individually and the parties would
share in the proceeds.
For the County's purposes, the Measure 37 waivers are no longer valid, and the
question is whether the applicant has obtained a common law vested rights.
The net effect of the agreement between the developer C. Corp and Mr.
Rencher was to substantially reduce Mr. Rencher's personal financial exposure
to loss. He would not contribute cash to the venture; C. Corp would contribute
cash up to $100,000; Mr. Rencher's financial contribution consisted of a loan of
$75,000, which was to be non - recoursable loan, meaning it is a lien on the
property but Mr. Rencher would not be obligated to pay it back. Mr. Renchers'
personal financial exposure in this case was in this case minimal.
Commissioner Luke asked how a loan would be structured that had no
obligation to pay it back. Mr. Griffin said that it is not entirely clear from the
record, so Mr. Rencher could have some financial liability. This issue places
this case in a different posture than other cases, because the common law vested
right concept relates to fairness, and recognizes that in some point in the
process the property owner assumed some financial risk. It is fundamentally
unfair to pull the rug out from underneath the property owner if there was
substantial expense incurred.
In other cases, applicants have invested funds and are on the hook for all of it.
In this case, personal financial exposure was limited. Fundamentally, this case
is different and Counsel feels that the Board needs to answer as to whether this
business arrangement between the developer and Mr. Rencher would preclude
Mr. Rencher obtaining a common law vested right.
In terms of expenses, the evidence of such is summarized in a worksheet
presented by Mr. Griffin. There are a couple of changes discussed between him
and Mr. Fitch. The most significant change is road construction. He feels that
the road would not be adaptable, because it bisects the property. Based on this,
if the Board does get to this question, is to approve about $51,000 in road
construction.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 2 of 20 Pages
In response to the staff report, Mr. Fitch indicated that in regard to expenses
relating to the failed 21 -lot subdivision or the 8 -lot subdivision, he indicates that
approximately $35,000 in engineering expenses were attributable to the 21 -lot
subdivisions, now $18,0000. Legal fees were also revised, as well as a couple
of others. Mr. Griffin feels that the total should be about $75,000; Mr. Fitch
feels it should be about $101,000.
Mr. Rencher was billed for $1,362 in relation to a Measure 37 waiver. The
remaining invoices were either directed towards the development corporation or
C. Corp, or the Swearingen Group, which might have been a predecessor of C.
Corp. Mr. Rencher is a member of REN Development LLC, but not a member
of C. Corp as far as Mr. Griffin knows.
Mr. Griffin is concerned about the $16,000 in claimed expenses from C. Corp,
which billed the LLC over four months to manage the property. Essentially, C.
Corp was the major contributor of cash, and under the contract was obligated to
provide project management services, but not entitled to compensation from
REN Development. The idea appears to be that there was going to be a split of
funds upon sale of the lots. He recommends disallowing it also because it needs
to be determined whether these amounts are reasonable, and the services were
not detailed.
Likewise, in terms of the total project cost, what was submitted in the record
was a construction budget that totaled about $593,000 to complete
infrastructure on this particular project. The concern is that unlike other cases,
there does not appear to be any evidence that backs up the method of
developing this particular budget and what assumptions were made; and
whether this particular budget was reasonable. There is a limited amount of
evidence that the Board has to use to determine whether this is reasonable.
If the Board accepts this figure and adopts the figure used in previous cases of a
home value of $100,000, this leaves a total cost of about $1.3 million. The ratio
provided by Mr. Fitch would be 1:13 or 7.5 %, which is in the ballpark for a
vested right. If Counsel's figures are used, it would be about 5 %. There is no
indication that Mr. Rencher did anything untoward or illegal or deceitful; he
proceeded in a natural course and there is no quarrel with anything like this.
His biggest concern is that the amount of financial exposure in this project of
the property owner was substantially limited, which places him in a much
different situation than those who have bankrolled the costs themselves.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 3 of 20 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that a lot of what has had to be done with Measure 37
and Measure 49 is flying by the seat of the pants. However, it was clear to him
and seemed to be universally accepted, if a Measure 37 claim was successful,
the ground could be developed and any home built could be sold. However, if
they sold the land prior to that, the land could not be developed. The Kim Ward
case involved the sale of property to an LLC that included the children. He felt
that the person who had the claim was the one to build the homes.
Mr. Griffin stated that this was before Measure 49 was even introduced.
Rulings during that time are of very limited value in determining financial
arrangements. There is no legal authority showing that the joint venture was an
issue. Clackamas County found that if the landowner did not invest money,
there is no vested right, but this is in an appeal process that will take at least a
year.
Commissioner Luke said that property owners were allowed to contract, borrow
funds or enter into agreements under Measure 37. Measure 49 was not a factor
at this time. He asked if this is different than a vested right claim.
Mr. Griffin replied that the holder of the Measure 37 claim could get all the
help they wanted to proceed, whether through loans, donations or other means.
But the fact that it is legally allowable to do this is a different question from
whether the recipient of the waiver has made a substantial investment and
should have a common law vested right to complete the project. Operating
under the text of Measure 49 qualifies and indicates the recipient of the waiver
has to be the one who obtains the vested right. Mr. Griffin feels this is a much
different question, and it is unknown whether there would be a financial loss in
this case given how Mr. Rencher limited his financial exposure.
Commissioner Luke surmised that the property owner would never have had to
pay the developer if nothing was ever built and sold. Mr. Griffin feels that this
payment would only take place upon sale of property. Chair Baney asked for
Mr. Griffin to point out where the terms of payment were listed. Mr. Griffin
said that on Page 2, addendum to operating agreement, tab D, development
loan, paragraph 9, explains that it is a nonrecourse loan. It was not a gift but
was a loan that did not expose Mr. Rencher until such time as property was
ready to be sold.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 4 of 20 Pages
Chair Baney asked that on Page 4 of the staff report, regarding the exclusion of
certain expenses, whether they were something that Mr. Rencher paid. It seems
that the vast amount of expenses was paid by C. Corp. Mr. Griffin said that
there were some expenses billed to C. Corp, and others to REN. The bills in
this case were not necessarily paid by Mr. Rencher. Chair Baney stated that it
appears that there is no documentation showing that Mr. Rencher paid back C.
Corp or Mr. Rencher for these expenses. Mr. Griffin stated that these would
have had to have been paid by December 6, 2007 to show his vested right.
Chair Baney stated that C. Corp is no longer an entity, and asked if these bills
were a part of this dissolution. Commissioner Luke said that the LLC was half -
owned by Mr. Rencher. Mr. Griffin stated that the LLC is a separate legal
entity, and C. Corp contributed a substantial amount of cash to the project. It is
not known if this was ever paid by the applicant, as there was nothing in the
agreements that obligated the payments.
Ed Fitch said that it is unfortunate that time was spent on talking about things
that don't exist. The whole arrangement was based on a 21 -lot subdivision.
Two subdivisions across the street from each other were proposed under
Measure 37, Arnetts and this one. Mr. Rencher relied on Measure 37, which
appeared to say that he could have developed the property s he would have been
able to do in 1964. The loan discussed in the REN operating agreement, the
loan for the first phase was to pay C. Corp, but the subdivision did not occur.
The whole arrangement with REN went away when the 21 -lot subdivision went
away. They were to share community water and sewer.
Mr. Fitch observed that in his opinion the State failed to weigh Goals 11 and 13,
Mr. Rencher and C. Corp went to an 8 -lot subdivision, at which time Mr.
Rencher got a $75,000 personal loan from Shirley Arnett to cover the previous
expenses. It became due in 2008. The entire liability for this loan was Mr.
Rencher's. He would also have lost equity in the property if he did not perform.
Mr. Rencher was to reimburse C. Corp for out of pocket expenses when lots
were sold. Mr. Rencher not only has the exposure for the $104,000 eligible
expenses, but is also liable for the expenses incurred for the 21 -lot subdivision,
and is also responsible for the completion of the current development.
There are a lot of statements regarding common areas and services with the
Arnett project. The revised information for this subdivision was about
$352,000, and there are other expenses forthcoming for roads and other
improvements to the project. The sum of $352,000 is a reasonable amount of
cost for this.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 5 of 20 Pages
The development started out with REN and C. Corp but did not go to fruition,
so the entire exposure for the costs and completion are Mr. Rencher's. There is
no question that he has an intense personal involvement, financial and personal.
Commissioner Luke asked which entity is dissolved. Mr. Fitch stated that REN
is dissolved and C. Corp is not operating, and has creditors to pay. The liability
is still there for Mr. Rencher. The REN operating agreement is null because it
was geared towards the 21 -lot subdivision, and Mr. Rencher had to get the
$75,00 loan to cover costs.
The reason the Crook County case was noted is that a Measure 37 waiver could
not be sold to another; but the Attorney General determined that for it to be
transferable is to do something with it and take some action to get vested. Even
then the A.G. was looking at common law vesting, and said that it is obvious
that people would team up with a developer with expertise to develop property.
These people all owned property prior to 1973, and for the most part are not in a
position to develop themselves. Most of them did so.
The joint venture never went through, and Mr. Rencher has been left with the
responsibility of carrying the project through. The $4,000 management fee
from C. Corp was arranged after the denial of the 21 -lot subdivision. They
were to provide construction management, coordinate contractor work and
work on the plans revised from 21 lots to 8 lots. They spent a lot of time on
that process, and the fee was reasonable and was agreed upon by Mr. Rencher.
The other issue is the figures of $105,000 and applied the total project cost, it is
in the ballpark and the Rencher figures are not. He feels that the 5.5% ratio is
appropriate and was approved by a Hearings Officer previously in another case.
All of the other factors are similar to other cases, as they proceeded with
waivers, land use applications, regrouped with changes, and got approval; then
they put in a road, graded as required, excavated and so on. Septic evaluations
and test holes were done and fees paid to the County. In Mr. Fitch's view, the
amount of investment was similar to that of other cases. The level of work is
comparable. If homes at $100,000 or more, they are still within the ratio.
Commissioner Luke asked about the road investment and others expenses, and
whether they were paid. If C. Corp is no longer operating, but is not in
bankruptcy, how does the landowner fit in. His question is whether they would
only be paid if the lots were sold. Mr. Fitch said that Mr. Rencher owes the
money, but payment is deferred until money is available. It is an asset of C.
Corp.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 6 of 20 Pages
Commissioner Luke asked if the land was sold as is, whether there would be a
claim against it. Mr. Fitch said there would be a claim for the work that was
performed.
Chair Baney asked if REN dissolved when the denial for the 21 -lot subdivision
fell through. Mr. Fitch said they dissolved in 2008 but the arrangement
changed at that time, and Mr. Rencher agreed to pay them the monthly fee and
got the $75,000. The agreement was never signed. C. Corp was to start to bill
the monthly amount at that time, in the early fall of 2007. The addendum was
proposed but never executed.
The payment date is not the critical date in this vesting. The critical thing is
what was done prior to December 6, 2007. It does not make any difference
when the payment is made. The issue is how far they got, not when they were
paid. Chair Baney said that if it was never finished it would not be paid. Mr.
Fitch said that in theory it would have been paid before now. The liability is
real. In human terms, C. Corp recognized that Mr. Rencher borrowed $75,000
and did not have the funds to pay them at the time. They felt they would get
paid later.
Commissioner Unger said the 21 -lot subdivision was denied in the hearing
process, and they regrouped afterwards. The costs went down at that point.
Where he is confused is the relationship between C. Corp and REN, and Mr.
Rencher, when the bills started getting paid by Mr. Rencher. When it became
an 8 -lot subdivisions, it appeared that Mr. Rencher assumed more
responsibility.
Mr. Fitch said that when Mr. Rencher borrowed the funds, they were transferred
to C. Corp to pay for obligations. Mr. Rencher is elderly, not well, and was not
actively engaged in the day to day operation. It was paid to C. Corp to pay for
W & H Pacific and other creditors. Chair Baney asked if there is information
regarding this payment. Mr. Fitch said that it was clear that the $75,000 was
borrowed and put into the project, into the C. Corp account, because they paid
the bills. Chair Baney asked if there was a return on that. Mr. Fitch said that
Mr. Rencher still owes Ms. Arnett $75,000 plus interest. It is a liability to C.
Corp.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 7 of 20 Pages
Commissioner Luke asked if there is any of the $75,000 left. Mr. Fitch stated
that it was used to pay Davidson and W & H, and perhaps Bend Excavating.
Chair Baney asked if this was spent on the 21 -lot subdivision or the new one.
Mr. Fitch said that C. Corp paid the previous expenses of about $35,000, prior
to the $75,000 which was to implement the subdivision approval for the 8 lots,
for putting in the road, septic approvals and additional survey work required by
the change of the number of lots. He said he can get this information to include
in the record.
Victoria Rivera, Frank Rencher's daughter, came before the Board. She said
the $75,000 loan went into a REN Development account, and she and someone
from C. Corp signed off on the checks from that account. The vast majority of
it went to developing the road.
Chair Baney asked about the road figures and which amount applied. Mr. Fitch
said $51,000 was paid to Davidson, Bend Excavating for the septic, and W & H
Pacific for planning; tab J, exhibit 1, pages 20 and 21 apply. Mr. Fitch said
there were some billings in November 2007 for the mass grading plans that
totaled about $10,000. All work ceased after December 5, 2007. The County
inspected the test holes later, but the fees were paid prior to then.
Chair Baney asked about the total project costs and whether the cost of homes
would be included. Mr. Griffin said yes. Chair Baney asked what Mr. Fitch
feels should be the total project costs. Mr. Fitch said that a lot of courts don't
look at a specific value of homes, but he feels $105,000 is reasonable.
Pete Rencher said that the $75,000 has been repaid. He said his father is 82
years old and has Parkinson's disease. This has been going on for about five
years. The property was purchased in 1964. They tried to take advantage of
Measure 37 so his father could provide property and an estate for the family's
children and grandchildren.
He added that it is hardly a situation where they wanted to become millionaires.
They never imagined they would be embroiled in a long process like this one,
which has been hard on the family due to all the roadblocks. The $75,000 he
borrowed was repaid from savings to keep this project alive to complete the
project. It is upsetting to hear that there was not enough financial exposure in
this case.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 8 of 20 Pages
Commissioner Luke asked about the Arnett loan. Pete Rencher said that it
came out of his father's retirement fund, and is a hardship. A two -lane road
runs through the property and has rendered the acreage unusable to farm as it
had been, but they tried to meet the requirements of the development at the
time. They have tried to comply all along. The last issue was the vesting date,
which was resolved. But the issue of not spending enough money to qualify is
frustrating. All they want to do is finish the 8 -lot development. The waiver
was granted four years ago and here they still are.
It was never clearly defined as to how much had to be spent for vesting to be in
place. They did their best to honorably comply. As a taxpayer, he is concerned
that there has not been an objective overview of this project, and that they were
unfairly targeted. He feels that the County should try to help them get this
through and not be adversarial. Chair Baney asked what was felt was not
objective. Mr. Rencher said that County Counsel has come up with an opinion
of what should be included and what should not be. They had no idea of what
was needed at the time.
Commissioner Luke stated that this is County Counsel's job, looking at the
claim and what is in the record to justify it. It is an adversarial process, because
if the Board makes a determination that is not based in law, it can be
challenged. He said he has had to sit through a lot of Measure 37 cases and he
is frustrated with the process as well. Measure 49 made it that much more
unclear, and there are no court judgments to fall back on. It is difficult for the
Board to follow a law that is not well understood.
Mr. Rencher said that there are more rulings now than were in place when they
were trying to figure out how much to invest. Commissioner Luke noted that it
is still a guess and there is not much guidance from the courts. Mr. Rencher
stated that the personal ramifications to his family are extreme, and they did the
best they did in good faith. They are asking that a decision be made to enable
them to finish the project.
Darsee Staley, assistant Attorney General with Department of Justice,
Department of Land Conservation and Development, said that it is clear to her
that a longer view might give the Board some more context to work with. The
reason for this is the change of project. After waivers were granted, they
proceeded with the 21 -lot subdivision. There was a lot to that. She is familiar
with this because the scope of Measure 37 waivers was disputed. A lawsuit was
raised against DLCD in this regard.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 9 of 20 Pages
Measure 37 drove a certain debate. The State found that Mr. Rencher was
restricted from the 21 -lot development. Nevertheless, post- acquisition land use
made it unlawful, so the 8 -lot use was granted. It said on the waiver that it
would be 8 lots. The lawsuits were about this issue, but became moot when a
Measure 37 decision was made. Claimants had to make choices in the
meantime, and Mr. Rencher decided to proceed with the 21 lots. All of this
work and time consumed was on something not upheld by the State. Ultimately
it was changed to 8 lots, which was approved.
The approval came in one day after Measure 49 passed. Measure 49 was then
clearly known and Judge Tiktin said this did not preclude people from trying to
vest. The State does not dispute this effort. That was a choice that was made
with some knowns and unknowns, in respect to a law that has been hotly
contested and questions still remain.
The big question seems to be the cost incurred. The State feels vesting is about
the costs incurred. Does this mean this has to be paid before some date? The
concept of a vesting date is hard to extract. Measure 49 made a bright line of
December 6, 2007, vested or not vested. It was not sure if it was work
performed or cost incurred. The State believes the claimant has to be the one
incurring the costs. A decision has been made but is being appealed at this
time.
It was a declaratory judgment in court. The State agreed this is one method to
determine vesting. In that case, the claimants had entered into a development
agreement, and it was fully non - recourse except to the extent that vesting was
obtained and lots were sold. The court found that the developer voluntarily
chose to absorb all the rest. That does not agree with what is in the Rencher
case, but there are elements of this. There is a significant issue with attorneys
as to who pays what. It has to be the claimant who pays, and it is difficult in
this case to know who pays. It is hard to know when REN went away.
Under tab J, page 11, there is a canceled check on the account of REN
Development LLC, dated December 5, 2007, which is substantial evidence that
it existed then. The only evidence about REN in the record are the operating
agreements. This check is probably Chuck Koon's signature, and he is the sole
shareholder and manager of C. Corp. One member of REN paid this, showing
that REN is the responsible party, and there appears to be no dispute that Mr.
Rencher is a 50% member. If all expenses and costs incurred that the claimant
is putting forth is $100,000, it appears that Mr. Rencher's liability is $50,000.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 10 of 20 Pages
Another way to look at this is the $75,000. There is evidence in the record that
Frank Rencher incurred this debt towards this property. $51,680 of those
dollars went to the road. The factors that the State believes the Commissioners
should look at is what this served and what it was for. Whether it was designed
for the 21 lots and not the 8 lots depends on the date. There are available
expenses for the remaining costs to further the 8 lots, such as application fees,
legal fees, excavating for test holes and engineering fees that were scaled back.
The $16,000 payments to C. Corp seem troubling under this view of the
arrangements. If REN is still operating, it is clear that C. Corp's contribution
was its serves. It is not clear if this is for the 21 lots or 8 lots. There were not
four months available during this transition. Therefore, the State's view is the
cost incurred is about $75,000.
Another issue is what should be considered with the vesting date, and that is the
County's septic site evaluation. Someone paid the County on December 5 for
site evaluations, which were not done until December 12. This was paid prior
to December 6 but the work was not performed until later. If that were
acceptable, a construction company could be paid in advance to be able to slip
in under the date. Because of the amount of the cost and the fact that it was for
an application, the State is not suggesting that this be excluded.
She said she is not sure about the Crook County case and how it fits into this
issue. In today's context, she feels that this was squarely within the Measure 37
context regarding transferable waivers, and took place in 2006. The expectation
of many was that projects would be completed. If there is a nonconforming use
it is felt that the property could be transferred.
Commissioner Luke said that this is binding only on Crook County as there was
no decision of a higher court. Ms. Staley said that another case in Jackson
County had a similar result. There are now three reasoned decisions on this
issue, but no Appellate Court decision.
The bottom line is that the State believes the ratio in this case is closer to 3%
than 5 %. Including the houses, which cost is debatable. The State does not
dispute the $353,000 expense to get to the subdivision. Amounts for homes
costing $100,000 to $200,000 are quoted, but the State feels this amount should
be slightly higher. The ratio comes out at about 3.5 %. For the record, she
offered two public documents from the U.S. Census Bureau. There is a lot of
information on building costs by region. One is the media cost of homes,
excluding the costs of the real property or infrastructure.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 11 of 20 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that what has become apparent is charts that were
made years ago have no relevance to today's market. An overpass recently
built came in much lower than expected. Ms. Staley said they compile
information from late 2008. She said this shows trends. She then went over
what is assumed to be the average cost of a home of that nature.
Commissioner Luke asked if it is the State's position that the applicant is not
vested. Ms. Staley said that the State does not take a position in this issue, and
she did not want to offer her personal opinion.
Commissioner Luke said that in the big scheme of things, because of
developments put in before land use, what difference would another 8 lots
make. These were approved by the DLCD previously and if Measure 49 had
not passed, they would be in place now. Ms. Staley agreed that this is correct.
Ms. Staley pointed out in the staff report that the Hearings Officer's decision,
tab E, page 15, the County planning staff put together local information that
points to new home construction costs. However, when this was used in other
cases, the State did not prevail. Commissioner Luke noted that the court gives
deference to elected officials of the counties.
Ms. Staley said that there is documentation from County staff as to the normal
cost of homes, as of mid -2007. She noted that the record does include
documentation from builders and others that support Mr. Rencher's side. Ms.
Staley said that the buyers of the lots would not be precluded to building a
lower cost home, so the State looks at broader measures in this regard. The
State feels $100,000 is not reasonable.
Commissioner Luke stated that there is nothing to stop someone from installing
a double wide mobile home, either. He feels that the record is being built and
that is why this type of information is included.
Ms. Staley said that the State feels $120 per square foot for a 2,449 square foot
is reasonable in this case. The home would cost about $293,000. This results
in a ratio of about 3.3 %.
Chair Baney said there has been a significant change in values over the past
year or two. Ms. Staley feels this unknown is not within the scope of the
State's opinion.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 12 of 20 Pages
Ms. Staley offered one of the eight septic site evaluations, demonstrating that
the site work was done on December 12, for a four - bedroom home. She does
not know if this is a normal test, and assumes that it is required, but shows an
anticipation of a substantial house.
She said that in preparation for the 21 lots, there were proposed CC &R's, but a
certain type of home was to be required, nothing under 2,000 square feet. She
presented photos of the property, taken by DLCD field representative Jon
Jinnings in early 2008. She asked that the Board take this information into
consideration.
Commissioner Luke stated that there appears to be a barn in the photos. He
asked if one of the lots is currently occupied.
Mr. Fitch said that Yamhill County had a case of a 5 -lot subdivision, and the
basic premise of this is fairness and equity, as to whether someone changed
position lawfully. It appears that all of these factors other than ratios were
clearly met. It cannot be used for any other purpose. The whole issue comes
down to money. The context of humans and people needs to be considered.
After the 21 -lot subdivision was approved, he continued to deposit money into
REN Development to pay the bills. What is disturbing is that this whole
transition has been ignored by the State, in that the relationship in this project
changed dramatically when the lot number changed.
In terms of the loan, the expenses that were incurred by C. Corp and paid turned
out to be a loan that Mr. Rencher agreed to pay. From the human context, there
is 110 question that Mr. Rencher put his retirement at issue. This is now a
liability, not an asset. There is a huge road through the property and it cannot
be used for farming. This has been a series of frustrations.
He said the State violated the law by issuing what turned out to be a partial
waiver, and cannot continue to make impositions. The 8 lots was not an issue.
The State violated the administrative procedures act by not allowing hearings.
This lead to a delay in the original subdivision, which was denied in June 2007.
There were then 4 months of C. Corp oversight. The modified subdivision
came to this Board in October. The only person in the room was Frank
Rencher. The Board orally approved the subdivision on that day.
Arrangements started in late October to implement this, based on an oral
decision.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 13 of 20 Pages
When one looks at the cost of homes, he is skeptical of the Census Bureau and
its view of the entire west coast. This kind of evidence would not be allowed in
a courtroom. What is important is what affects just this area. You can get a
house for $38 per square foot, so a figure of up to $300 per square foot or more
is not correct. The figures given were valuation figures based on building
permit fees, not cost. The range of $100,000 to $200,000 per square foot for
homes, comes up with a 5.9% ratio, which has been approved by the County.
There is no reason that Mr. Rencher should be allowed to finish this venture and
pay his creditors, and enjoy the results while he is still alive.
Chair Baney asked about the road improvements, which were done in
November. Mr. Fitch said the W &H Pacific work was done in November.
Chair Baney said the Measure 49 was passed by then. She questioned when
REN ceased work. Mr. Fitch said it was dissolved in 2008. The scope of the
work changed earlier, and C. Corp was not entitled not to proceeds of any sales
but to reimbursements of expenses.
Commissioner Luke stated that C. Corp is no longer a partner in any sales; Mr.
Fitch concurred. The whole thing collapsed with the change of subdivision
numbers. The road was developed in November after the grading plans were
redone.
Chair Baney asked how the homesites were to be laid out. Pete Rencher stated
that the ranch was originally 120 acres and there are no dwellings on this
particular acreage, nor a barn. Mr. Fitch stated that the road is required for
anything over two lots.
Chair Baney asked if the type of homes were determined or desired. Mr. Fitch
said that with the Arnett and Rencher properties together, they were to be nice
residences. The Arnetts pulled out and this one was denied. The County's
waiver was that it could be developed as it could have been done in 1964.
Commissioner Luke said the Board just granted the waiver, and applications
were to follow. Mr. Fitch said that this development has no CC &Rs, nor a
homeowners association; all that is addressed is access and configuration of the
homes. There was no site plan or size of home indicated. People can do what
they wish with the property at this point.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 14 of 20 Pages
Commissioner Luke said this is a land use decision and Measure 37 was not a
land use action. Mr. Fitch feels that linking the subdivisions was developed
after the waivers were granted. Commissioner Luke stated that people tried to
bring in plans on what they wanted to do, but it was clearly not a part of
determining a Measure 37 entitlement.
Mr. Fitch stated that land use development would have come later, and he
thinks that Mr. Rencher did not bring in any information like this at the time.
The intent was never to build homes, but to have lots to go to family members
or sell some to cover costs. Chair Baney stated that 21 lots would have not
supported this. Mr. Fitch said that there were three purposes: family use,
retirement and to pay for costs.
Mr. Griffin was asked to submit some State documents that he feels are already
in the record. He feels that the figures and documents presented were not
picked out of thin air, although some targets have shifted. The various
agreements in the record came from this. There has been some refinements of
budget and amenities, as well as the nature of the relationship of the entities.
He feels this case is difficult due to the state of the evidence and the record.
Commissioner Luke asked if the $75,000 plus interest was repaid to cover
expenses, what does County Counsel feel. Mr. Griffin said this was not clear to
him as to whether it was a loan that had to be repaid. He feels that it would be
personal expense of Mr. Rencher if this proves to be true. This would change
the percentage. This brings the ratio to about 8 -9 %, which is in the ballpark.
Chair Baney referred to exhibit 1 under tab J. Mr. Griffin stated that this was
presented at the original hearing on vested right. The information presented
was the $592,000, and he understands the $200,000 difference was due to the
amenities and amount of work to be done was refined between March 2008 and
today. It may have been that in March 2008 the information was not yet
complete.
Chair Baney asked if a time snapshot is to be taken, and if it is December 6,
2007. Should they consider what is detailed at this point. Mr. Griffin said that
if the Board finds this is just a refinement of figures and at that date these were
the correct ones, and the information at the first hearing was not clear, that is
one thing.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 15 of 20 Pages
Mr. Fitch said that in the original submittal, there were inclusions relating to the
21 lots. The 21 lot expenses and costs were removed, and the figure of
$144,000 went down to $105,000, and the budgetary figures were reduced as
well. The common area and other improvements were based on the 21 lots. In
essence, the project has not changed but the expenses and budgetary figures
have both gone down. The figures included some of those figures at the time,
but were refined almost a year ago.
Chair Baney wanted to be sensitive to the family involved, but the Board has to
base a decision on facts and all information needs to be included.
Commissioner Luke stated that the note needs to be included, as to the $75,000
payment and where it went. He said he had some concerns based on legitimate
questions of Counsel, and many were clarified today. Measure 37 was tough,
before the courts addressed it and the Department of Justice Attorney General
had not made a decision. The relationship between the applicant and the
developer was a big concern, but the $75,000 loan being paid off makes a big
difference.
Commissioner Luke told County Counsel that he appreciates the work being
done and the fact that he does not automatically favor the applicant's side of
things, which is important to a balanced decision.
Chair Baney asked if the information could be submitted soon, so it can be
reviewed prior to the Wednesday, December 9, 2009 regular meeting of the
Board. All parties agreed.
Chair Baney continued the hearing until 10:00 a.m., December 9.
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2009-
669, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Department of Corrections
regarding Treatment of Drug- Addicted Offenders.
Ken Hales gave a brief overview of the item, relating to Measure 57 which
required longer sentences for offenders as well as treatment for those offenders
who are drug- addicted. This agreement provides $434,609 over the biennium
for these services, which the Parole & Probation Department will provide. The
Plan has been approved. There will be two new FTE's as a part of this
agreement, but the future of all funding for Parole & Probation services is to be
determined by the Legislature.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 16 of 20 Pages
LUKE: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of County
Administrator's Signature of Document No. 2009 -554, an Agreement with
Residential Assistance Program for Mental Health Services
(Developmental Disabilities Program).
Kathy Drew provided a brief description of the item. Payment is direct from
the State to the provider, but the County monitors the program, with reporting
done once a month. The State also provides an annual audit of the program.
LUKE: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2009-
659, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Bureau of Land
Management, Granting a Right -of -Way for 19th Street.
George Kolb gave an overview of the document, which involves a right -of -way
for BLM land only. The County will need to provide fencing at the edge of the
right -of -way and a cattle guard. Commissioner Luke observed that this could
allow for a trail adjacent to the road. Mr. Kolb said that David Evans
Engineering will be working with the private property owners in the area on
rights -of -way for this project.
Commissioner Unger thanked previous Redmond Mayor Ed Fitch, who began
work on this project years ago.
LUKE: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Page 17 of 20 Pages
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Luke asked about the length of time of reappointments to the
Commission on Children & Families, in particular Representative Whisnant. Chair
Baney noted that Representative Whisnant is on the State Commission and this is
an important link.
LUKE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
LINGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Consent Agenda Items
6. Approval of County Administrator's Signature of Document No. 2009 -527, a
Personal Services Agreement with Marc Williams, M.D. for Health Services
7. Signature of Document No. 2009 -658, a Bargain & Sale Deed regarding a Lot
Line Adjustment, Poe Sholes Drive
8. Signature of Resolution 2009 -120, Transferring Appropriations — Sheriff's
Office Fund (Position Reclassification)
9. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -130, Declaring Certain County Personal
Property Surplus and Authorizing Donation (Vehicle)
10. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -131, Transferring Appropriations — Local
Improvement District 2003 (BOTC) Fund
11. Signature of a Letter Reappointing Steven Rounds to the Newberry Estates
Special Road District Board, through December 31, 2012
12. Signature of Letters regarding Appointments to the Commission on Children &
Families' Board:
• Reappointing Renee Windsor and Howard Finck, through December 31, 20 1
• Reappointing Lynn Hobson and Carolyn Klindt Stoops, through December ;1, 2013
• Reappointing Gene Whisnant, Jeff Eager and Michelle Shaffer as Ex- Officio
Members
13. Signature of Letters Reappointing Pat Croll, Chuck Hemingway, Kristin
Powers, Lee Ann Ross, Nancy Ruel, Julie Rychard and Marianne Straumfjord
to the Deschutes County Addictions & Mental Health Advisory Board, througf
December 31, 2012
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 200')
Page 18 of 20 Pages
14. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of David Marchi from the
Addictions & Mental Health Advisory Board, and Thanking him for his Service
15. Approval of Minutes:
• Business Meetings: March 30; November 9
• Work Session: November 9
• Department Heads Meeting: November 9
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
16. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District in the Amount of
$30,410.09 (three weeks).
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LLTKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4 -H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
17. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension /4 -H County Service District in the
Amount of $4,591.03 (three weeks).
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
18. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $8,293,533.12
(three weeks).
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 200'
Page 19 of 20 Pages
Dave Kanner noted that much of this amount was to advance funds to the
smaller taxing districts, which makes more sense than allotting smaller amounts
over a long period of time.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
19. Before the Board was an Addition to the Agenda.
Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2009 -072, a
Determination on a Remand Hearing on Application from David Hurtley
regarding Relief under Ballot Measure 49.
Steve Griffin explained this Order reflects the decision of the Board on this
remand hearing, to approve Mr. Hurtley's application. Counsel for Mr. Hurtley
also feels that this is appropriate.
This will be reviewed and signed at the afternoon's work session.
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 12 :20 p.m.
DATED this 2 "d Day of December 2009 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
bi/Tammy Baney, Chair
Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair
Alan Unger, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Page 20 of 20 Pages
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
ES
w
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, DECEMBER 2, 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. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2009-
072, regarding Remand on an Application from Frank L. Rencher for a
Determination of Whether he is Entitled to Relief under Ballot Measure 49 —
Steve Griffin, County Counsel
3. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2009 -669, an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Department of Corrections regarding
Treatment of Drug- Addicted Offenders — Ken Hales, Community Justice
4. CONSIDERATION of Approval of County Administrator's Signature of
Document No. 2009 -554, an Agreement with Residential Assistance Program
for Mental Health Services (Developmental Disabilities Program) — Kathy
Drew, Behavioral Health
5. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2009 -659, an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Bureau of Land Management, Granting
a Right -of -Way for 19th Street — George Kolb, Road Department
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 2, 2009
Page 1 of 8 Pages
CONSENT AGENDA
6. Approval of County Administrator's Signature of Document No. 2009 -527, a
Personal Services Agreement with Marc Williams, M.D. for Health Services
7. Signature of Document No. 2009 -658, a Bargain & Sale Deed regarding a Lot
Line Adjustment, Poe Sholes Drive
8. Signature of Resolution 2009 -120, Transferring Appropriations — Sheriff's
Office Fund (Position Reclassification)
9. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -130, Declaring Certain County Personal
Property Surplus and Authorizing Donation (Vehicle)
10. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -131, Transferring Appropriations — Local
Improvement District 2003 (BOTC) Fund
11. Signature of a Letter Reappointing Steven Rounds to the Newberry Estates
Special Road District Board, through December 31, 2012
12. Signature of Letters regarding Appointments to the Commission on Children &
Families' Board:
• Reappointing Renee Windsor and Howard Finck, through December 31, 2011
• Reappointing Lynn Hobson and Carolyn Klindt Stoops, through December 31,
2013
• Reappointing Gene Whisnant, Jeff Eager and Michelle Shaffer as Ex- Officio
Members
13. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of David Marchi from the
Addictions & Mental Health Advisory Board, and Thanking him for his Service
14. Signature of Letters Reappointing Pat Croll, Chuck Hemingway, Kristin
Powers, Lee Ann Ross, Nancy Ruel, Julie Rychard and Marianne Straumfjord
to the Deschutes County Addictions & Mental Health Advisory Board, through
December 31, 2012
15. Approval of Minutes:
• Business Meetings: March 30; November 9
• Work Session: November 9
• Department Heads Meeting: November 9
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 2, 2009
Page 2 of 8 Pages
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE
DISTRICT
16. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the 9 -1 -1 County Service District (three weeks)
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4 -H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
17. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extension/4 -H County Service District (three weeks)
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
18. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County (three weeks)
19. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
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.)
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 off)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 2, 2009
Page 3 of 8 Pages
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)
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
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
1:00 p.m. Official Signing of Greater Sisters Community Wildfire Protection Plan — Sisters
Fire Department Community Hall
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 2, 2009
Page 4 of 8 Pages
Wednesday, December 16
11:00 a.m. Oregon Youth Challenge Graduation Ceremony
2:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) — Please note later time!
Thursday, December 17
9:00 a.m. Regular Update with the Sheriff's Office
11:00 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
Monday, January 4
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)
Tuesday, January 5
1:30 p.m. Meeting of Full Budget Committee — Overview and Update
Wednesday, January 6
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 2, 2009
Page 5 of 8 Pages
Wednesday, January 13
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Thursday, January 14
7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, Council Chambers, Redmond
Monday, January 18
Most County Offices will be closed to observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Wednesday, January 20
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Thursday, January 21
11:00 a.m. Meeting with Commission on Children & Families' Board and Department
Monday, January 25
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, January 27
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Monday, February 1
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 Monday, December 2, 2009
Page 6 of 8 Pages
Wednesday, February 3
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, February 10
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Monday, February 15
Most County Offices will be closed to observe Presidents' Day
Wednesday, February 17
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Monday, February 22
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
12:00 noon Regular Meeting with Department Directors
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, February 24
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Monday, March 1
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, March 3
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 2, 2009
Page 7 of 8 Pages
Thursday, March 4
10:00 a.m. Quarterly Update with the District Attorney
11:00 a.m. Quarterly Update with Community Development
1:30 p.m. Quarterly Update with the Road Department
2:30 p.m. Quarterly Update with Solid Waste
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 Monday, December 2, 2009
Page 8 of 8 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701 -1960
(541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org
ADDITION TO BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2009
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
CONSIDERATION of Signature of Order No. 2009 -072, a Determination on a
Remand Hearing on Application from David Hurt ley regarding Relief under Ballot
Measure 49 — Steve Griffin, County Counsel
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: 2 • Lc a. 'r
Name o IC►s F L `r a L 4
Address
I/ (02 eovg- 5"/- /vF
ja/(ekvl e' 7 3 0
Date: 12./2 /260i
Phone #s 5- 6 3 747 7 00
E -mail address Jae se e. s frJ e/ @ c f•
In Favor
Sim. of. v 5
XNeutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? V Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Agenda Item of Interest:
Name
Address
- 4 _ (:
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Phone #s l t
Opposed
No
Date: 1 2- Z — ct?
E -mail address
In Favor
e_
Neutral/Undecided
a-<-0
Opposed
No
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Vs, Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
0
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest: Q,�/f(Il eK-
Name tG qb C l
Address
/.-{(4v/14.1
Date:
Phone #s D 5gZ 3
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
Agenda Item of interest: enC Y /V/ �' 7 Date:
Name ! /67(5)21 4 1/
Address /52 L/ )
Phone #s �� _ 7c .S l /
E -mail address
In Favor
Opposed
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
No
Fax Dec 2 2009 08:40am P007/007
MAY 1 4 2.D09
2
3
4 . CIRCUIT COURT, STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FRANK L. RENCHER, an individual,
Plaintiff,
.vs
DESCHUTES COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Oregon,
Defendant.
Case No. 08CV0878AB
GENERAL JUDGMENT
Based upon the order on petitioners' writ of review;
IT IS HEREBY ORDER AND ADJUDGED that the decision of respondent is reversed and
this mart' is remanded to the respondent. The respondent is directed to reconsider its decision
according to the legal standard set forth in the order and shall reopen the record for further evidence
and argument as necessary to comply with this court's decision_
U''1
DATED this f r day of M 2009.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward P. Fitch, OSB 782026
Of Attorney for Petitioner
The Honorable A. Michael Adler
Circuit Court Judge
Page 1. GENERAL JUDGMENT
AClients PMEncher. FrtsnklRencher,Frank WritcfReview \Genea4 Judgtxcetwpd(tmm)
BRYAN F, EMERSON & Fl FCH, us
ATTORNEYS AY LAW
B86 SA EVE 'EN AVENUE
RO. BOX 457
REDMOND. OREGON ansamat
YELZPHONE 154t,,aa.2trt
FAX (541) 549.7MS
1
2
3
4
5
G
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•5
26
Fax
MAY 1 4 2UO
Dec 2 2009 08410am P0041007
CIRCUIT COURT, STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF JESCHUTI S
FRANK L. RL NC1-I13R, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
D1 SCEHUTES COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Oregon,
Defendant.
Case No. 08CV0878AJ3
ORDER ON PETITIONER'S WRIT
OF REVIEW
This matter comes before the our on a writ of review, The court having reviewed the rile
finds that the correct date for assessment of vesting activity was December 6, 2007, This date is
consistent with the date found by the honorable Stephen M. Tikciri in the Arnett v. Deschutes
County, Ue'schutes County Circuit Case No 08CV0470ST and Harry v. Deschutes County,
Deschutes County Circuit Case No. 08CV0469ST, The County needs to reconsider these
applications based upon that vesting date rather than the June 15, 2007 date. This matter should bo
remanded to the County to reassess those expenditure's, as well as all cxpcnditures fertile cost of the
project. Those costs should include the cost of homes.
The court finds that based upon the case of rote's Mountain v. Cluckamas County, Court of
Appeals Case No A140272, the Goal Post Statute has been resolved and does not apply to these
11/
Page 1. ORDER. ON .pin'ITJONER'S WRIT OF RF,VIEW
OACRattialOttenulim, FlanktFmcnctur,Prai WnmtltovI \)rderon Petitiaves Wait a rReviaw+.wpd(mam)
I MYAND. IiMFASON fie Frre.0
arralti aAr LAW
MU 5,W MIX-AINAUFt+UN
tau Banc 4or
fr MONt1, QRE<roN imam
rciPpooNG 1$41) U 51
rnx tsatj 645 1t
muy 4u -GUUo I I IU l U∎ UY t ii l yy uyl 1 1 vvunwa.a
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Fax
,Pec 2 2009 08;40am P005/007
developments. The court further finds that the argument regarding license is not a basis for reversal
or remand.
DATED this ._Ljj day o aTt4, 2009.
he Icon 1 Ate. ichael Adler
Circuit Court Judge
SUBMITTED BY:
L7clward P, Fitch, OSB 782026
Of Attorney for Put ili°D r
Page 2. ORDER ON P13T1TIONER,'S WRIT OF .RE,VI13W
iknt Iii'\RMelt%FrenlAltcrtehhr t enk Wriw1RvvfeWU)rdcro Fetitionces WiiI of Ruwiaw.wpd(iiciUj
BRYANT, t►g11MON fk FITGU.
*TIMMY'S AT 1,A14
WSS.W EVERCHIENAYI;HUE
P.O LOX Aar
kalmOMC, (*POOH 177'.XOIC7
TR.FPI Ind girl I) '411121 es
em gain MIPS*w
nuu— cu —cuuc im4t1 iu, V't ?„i vvw+b 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
t$
19
20
21
22
23
let
25
26
Fax Dec 2 2009 06 :40am P006/007
CERTI ICATP.O1 SERVICE
I
hereby t:er'tify that I served the foregoing ORDER ON PETITION ER.' S WRIT OF REVIEW
on the fallowing party by mailing FL true copy thereof, codified by me as such, contained in a scaled
cnvclope with postage paid, addressed to said party as follows:
Stcvcri Griffin (via a -mail to: M even 14113n[- co.d�. hltxes,armu1)
Descbutd:s County Counsel
1300 NW Walt St., Suite 200
Bold, OR 97701
Darscc Staley (via c -mail to: rtarsee.ga a y(,a ?gatc.nr.us)
Dcpntirtient'of Justice
Trial Division
1162, Court Street NE
Salern, OR 97301
Pamela Isar dy (via e-mail to: panihardy.law cz�?gr . Cann)
1629 NW Fresno Avenue
Bend, OR 97701
and depositing in tlw post office at Reclrnond, Oregon on this — day of May 2009.
sward 1'. i itch, OS13 782026
Of Attorneys for Petitioner
Page 3. O1t1.713,Et ON PETITIONER'S WRIT OF REVIEW
OACiietUsPPRikvnetkfi, Frunkllkcncf,or,rrrnk WlitvrRcvicuN)rdcr n rntidance& Writ t F81:viDW wpd(rn fl)
I RYANT,, F,MFtt5OPi Ac NMI
Ar7OnNrys Mw
a1u! S,W MtTICRR.0 4 AvENOE
1!o DOX
fthrom ts,0104,tOPPs77FGOr71
IELF01,1ONrii 4')filmPIS1
AX 04114A 0794
Median and Average Contract Price per Square Foot of New Contractor -Built One - Family Houses Started by Location
(Contract price excludes value of improved lot. Medians and averages computed from unrounded figures.)
Year
Median contract price per square foot
Average contract price per square foot
United
States
Inside
MSAs
Outside
MSAs
Region
United
States
Inside
MSAs
Outside
MSAs
Region
North-
east
Midwest
South
West
North -
east
Midwest
South
West
1987
$43.40
$46.30
$38.70
$52.55
$45.15
$39.70
$45.85
$48.40
$51.35
$42.10
$59.50
$47.60
$44.35
$53.25
1988
$45.00
$47.65
$41.00
$51.30
$47.15
$42.30
$46.55
$49.90
$53.05
$44.30
$56.75
$49.05
$46.70
$55.80
1989
$46.85
$48.35
$44.50
$54.00
$47.80
$43.55
$50.70
$52.40
$54.35
$48.60
$60.20
$52.25
$48.60
$57.60
1990
$49.25
$51.95
$45.00
$60.20
$50.05
$43.70
$54.95
$55.45
$59.60
$48.15
$67.25
$53.75
$19.30
$66.75
1991
$50.40
$52.70
$46.20
$57.50
$53.55
$45.60
$55.80
$55.15
$57.05
$51.20
$62.75
$55.60
$50.35
$61.15
1992
$53.33
$55.00
$50.07
$57.26
$54.17
$48.41
$59.12
$56.16
$57.92
$53.23
$61.60
$56.29
$51.19
$63.98
1993
$56.74
$59.21
$51.70
$65.60
$60.34
$50.00
$63.72
$59.22
$61.65
$54.71
$67.67
$61.28
$52.83
$67.21
1994
$59.09
$61.20
$54.72
$66.89
$60.06
$53.43
$68.75
$62.46
$64.90
$58.09
$71.40
$63.12
$56.84
$72.02
1995
$61.50
$63.97
$57.14
$69.87
$61.90
$56.25
$69.52
$64.85
$67.21
$60.95
$72.35
$64.00
$61.01
$74.40
1996
$63.92
$65.32
$61.39
$65.93
$65.22
$59.90
$73.78
$66.28
$67.86
$63.38
$72.08
$67.00
$61.66
$78.12
1997
$66.11
$68.75
$61.25
$70.12
$66.06
$62.50
$70.00
$69.18
$72.74
$63.26
$76.12
$67.82
$65.23
$78.15
1998
$69.18
$72.92
$62.83
$75.00
$69.44
$64.33
$79.40
$73.02
$77.12
$65.75
$78.84
$71.03
$67.38
$86.91
1999
$68.99
$71.01
$65.71
$71.73
$67.76
$65.31
$79.44
$72.36
$75.52
$67.42
$78.23
$71.33
$66.96
$85.98
2000
$70.78
$72.97
$67.16
$72.00
$71.29
$66.98
$84.07
$75.57
$79.07
$70.46
$79.44
$74.90
$68.77
$94.75
2001
$74.97
$77.23
$70.61
$76.43
$73.37
$71.05
$91.48
$79.90
$82.94
$75.00
$82.51
$76.14
$74.78
$102.76
2002
$74.79
$75.91
$72.04
$81.23
$76.21
$67.22
$87.52
$78.30
$80.23
$75.74
$87.41
$77.18
$71.38
$94.52
2003
$76.28
$79.44
$71.57
$86.86
$80.13
$67.05
$89.50
$82.16
$85.69
$77.81
$92.19
$83.29
$73.44
$97.84
2004
$81.41
$82.90
$79.09
$89.49
$85.79
$71.79
$95.49
$88.84
$92.54
$84.65
$95.50
$90.17
$79.73
$107.72
2005
$88.11
$86A0
$90.15
$103.24
$88.68
$76.08
$107.16
$95.25
$94.96
$95.79
$110.16
$89.11
$83.01
$123.43
2006
$90.24
$91.77
$87.34
$99.48
$90.17
$80.93
$110.02
$98.44
$99.97
$95.30
$111.81
$89.72
$89.27
$123.58
2007
$91.76
$93.40
$84.71
$105.30
$92.74
$81.10
$122.38
$101.59
$104.65
$95.46
$121.32
$94.97
$89.17
$131.70
2008
$92.52
$94.25
$89.51
$103.66
$91.75
$86.20
$121.46
$103.89
$104.37
$102.90
$120.94
$96.43
$91.80
$137.47
RSE
3
4
4
5
6
3
8
3
3
6
6
5
4
7
RSE Relative Standard Error.
Note: Data for 1992 through 2001 have been recomputed using a revised tabulation methodology. Beginning with the data for 1999, an adjustment for extreme values
is made when calculating the average contract price per square foot.
Median and Average Square Feet of Floor Area in New One - Family Houses Completed by Location
(Medians and averages computed from unrounded figures)
Year
Median square feet
Average square feet
United
States
Inside
MSAs
Outside
MSAs
Region
United
States
Inside
MSAs
Outside
MSAs
Region
North-
east
Midwest
South
West
North -
east
Midwest
South
West
1973
1,525
1,625
1,380
1,450
1,445
1,555
1,575
1,660
1,760
1,490
1,595
1,615
1,670
1,715
1974
1,560
1,665
1,405
1,465
1,490
1,640
1,540
1,695
1,785
1,545
1,600
1,660
1,760
1,660
1975
1,535
1,630
1,365
1,405
1,460
1,605
1,510
1,645
1,735
1,490
1,575
1,580
1,705
1,635
1976
1,590
1,675
1,425
1,505
1,495
1,660
1,565
1,700
1,775
1,560
1,630
1,655
1,755
1,685
1977
1,610
1,705
1,440
1,540
1,540
1,660
1,615
1,720
1,795
1,565
1,650
1,650
1,770
1,730
1978
1,655
1,735
1,490
1,640
1,615
1,685
1,630
1,755
1,830
1,610
1,730
1,730
1,785
1,740
1979
1,645
1,735
1,485
1,690
1,605
1,675
1,625
1,760
1,845
1,605
1,795
1,720
1,795
1,730
1980
1,595
1,670
1,450
1,660
1,520
1,615
1,570
1,740
1,825
1,575
1,770
1,685
1,750
1,735
1981
1,550
1,650
1,415
1,655
1,480
1,540
1,580
1,720
1,820
1,535
1,805
1,670
1,715
1,735
1982
1,520
1,600
1,355
1,605
1,405
1,500
1,595
1,710
1,795
1,545
1,755
1,655
1,700
1,740
1983
1,565
1,610
1,445
1,650
1,515
1,565
1,545
1,725
1,785
1,570
1,795
1,735
1,720
1,695
1984
1,605
1,645
1,495
1,665
1,600
1,590
1,610
1,780
1,840
1,600
1,860
1,800
1,750
1,785
1985
1,605
1,655
1,445
1,655
1,625
1,590
1,595
1,785
1,830
1,610
1,830
1,820
1,765
1,770
1986
1,660
1,700
1,470
1,695
1,685
1,655
1,635
1,825
1,865
1,640
1,850
1,855
1,825
1,800
1987
1,755
1,800
1,565
1,840
1,740
1,755
1,730
1,905
1,950
1,700
1,955
1,890
1,915
1,870
1988
1,810
1,880
1,570
1,810
1,840
1,790
1,845
1,995
2,055
1,750
2,005
2,015
1,985
1,995
1989
1,850
1,920
1,570
1,870
1,800
1,815
1,910
2,035
2,105
1,750
2,075
1,970
2,030
2,065
1990
1,905
1,985
1,630
1,955
1,850
1,855
1,985
2,080
2,155
1,800
2,105
2,005
2,055
2,160
1991
1,890
1,970
1,635
1,950
1,800
1,870
1,980
2,075
2,155
1,815
2,105
1,990
2,065
2,155
1992
1,920
1,990
1,700
2,000
1,870
1,945
1,890
2,095
2,160
1,870
2,115
2,020
2,130
2,090
1993
1,945
2,000
1,700
2,050
1,855
2,000
1,845
2,095
2,160
1,860
2,160
2,025
2,150
2,050
1994
1,940
1,995
1,700
2,035
1,850
2,000
1,835
2,100
2,160
1,865
2,195
2,025
2,165
2,025
1995
1,920
1,975
1,720
2,095
1,850
1,945
1,835
2,095
2,150
1,870
2,240
2,020
2,125
2,045
1996
1,950
2,000
1,735
2,100
1,900
1,995
1,890
2,120
2,170
1,915
2,280
2,025
2,160
2,070
1997
1,975
2,015
1,765
2,130
1,900
2,000
1,930
2,150
2,200
1,955
2,265
2,065
2,175
2,135
1998
2,000
2,050
1,750
2,100
1,945
2,000
1,985
2,190
2,250
1,930
2,270
2,125
2,200
2,200
1999
2,028
2,089
1,811
2,175
1,937
2,044
2,001
2,223
2,274
1,991
2,298
2,135
2,244
2,234
2000
2,057
2,121
1,824
2,266
1,971
2,075
2,014
2,266
2,321
2,024
2,435
2,170
2,287
2,244
2001
2,103
2,152
1,905
2,305
1,965
2,128
2,080
2,324
2,361
2,162
2,466
2,209
2,351
2,317
2002
2,114
2,171
1,884
2,330
1,979
2,120
2,127
2,320
2,379
2,068
2,516
2,209
2,317
2,350
2003
2,137
2,177
1,941
2,288
1,998
2,142
2,166
2,330
2,382
2,113
2,443
2,198
2,335
2,387
2004
2,140
2,207
1,933
2,361
1,993
2,164
2,149
2,349
2,402
2,122
2,543
2,222
2,368
2,352
2005
2,227
2,273
1,952
2,339
2,054
2,259
2,236
2,434
2,479
2,137
2,556
2,310
2,463
2,434
2006
2,248
2,305
1,909
2,395
2,035
2,286
2,275
2,469
2,519
2,120
2,612
2,290
2,499
2,488
2007
2,277
2,319
1,956
2,281
2,064
2,325
2,286
2,521
2,581
2,133
2,550
2,328
2,573
2,524
2008
2,215
2,270
1,963
2,312
2,019
2,266
2,216
2,519
2,582
2,203
2,651
2,331
2,564
2,508
RSE
2
2
3
5
2
3
3
2
2
3
5
2
3
3
A Represents an RSE that is greater than or equal to 100 or could not be computed.
NA Not available. RSE Relative Standard Error.
S Withheld because estimate did not meet publication standards on the basis of response rate,
associated standard error, or a consistency review.
Z Less than 0.5 percent.
SED
ION
1 w1 1
•
Des. •■•■■im•s—
Planning Division 388 -6575