Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-13 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, AUGUST 13, 2008 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioner Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy Melton. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property and Facilities; Tom Anderson and Kristen Maze, Community Development; Scot Langton, Assessor; David Givans, Internal Auditor; John Russell and Patti Stell, City of Bend; and approximately thirty citizens, including several representatives of the media. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:03 a.m. 1. Before the Board as Citizen Input. None was offered. The Commissioners recognized Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel, for his five years of service. They also recognized Tom Anderson for his ten years of service to the County. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2008 -077, Establishing Rates for Franchised Collection of Solid Waste and Recyclables in Unincorporated Areas of Deschutes County. Timm Schimke gave an overview of the item. Three companies have requested this; one that serves Sunriver and south did not request this change. They are allowed to operate in the 9 -12% profit range. All of the companies are now operating below that range. The cost to consumers will be about a 10% increase. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 1 of 12 Pages The rate changes have already been acted upon by the cities of Bend and Redmond. The changes were somewhat lower since collection inside cities is much more efficient and cost - effective than collecting in rural areas. The last rate change not tied to an increase in services was in 2004. The rate request is routinely forwarded to an independent auditor and they have issued a report saying that the requests are reasonable. In the past the Director of Solid Waste would review the information along with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, but now an external auditor in conjunction with the County's internal auditor makes the recommendation. Mr. Schimke replied that the recommendations noted for the future will be analyzed and acted upon as appropriate. Commissioner Melton asked if there are recommendations that the companies are not interested in, what happens then. Mr. Schimke stated that the County has the authority to have them comply in most cases, especially if it is already in Code. Commissioner Luke asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. There was no response. MELTON: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2008 -427, a Contract with Justice Systems Corporation regarding the Jail Security Electronics Remodeling Project. Susan Ross presented the item. The award would be to Justice Systems Corporation. The control system in the adult jail facility will be upgraded since the old system is failing. MELTON: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 2 of 12 Pages 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2008- 454, an Amendment to an Option Agreement with Silvan Power Company to Extend the Option Period on Property in the La Pine Industrial Park. Ms. Ross explained that Silvan Power has asked for an extension of option agreement relating to 28 acres in La Pine Industrial Park. They would like the option extended an additional two years. This requires a non - refundable deposit of $28,000 for the extra time. Commissioner Melton said she spoke with representatives of the group a couple of months ago and they thought this might be necessary. Commissioner Luke stated that if they cannot get it done within the next two years, he will want to talk about the future of the land. MELTON: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -022, Amending County Code to Add Recreational Vehicles as Temporary Residences for Medical Conditions. Kristen Maze came before the Board, and said that the Ordinance has not changed. The Board had asked her to look at similar ordinances from other places and she is still reviewing those. This covers only the recreational vehicle aspect. Commissioner Luke stated that other issues relating to temporary residences will be addressed in the future. Commissioner Melton said that the greatest concern seems to be relating to the use of manufactured homes as temporary residences. MELTON: Move second reading by title only. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Chair Luke then conducted the second reading, by title only. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 3 of 12 Pages MELTON: Move adoption. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2008 -076, Forming the Bend Area Transportation District and Placing a Measure on the November 4, 2008 Ballot. Laurie Craghead said this is the second of the required hearings for this measure. The City is not prepared to go forward at this point. There are discrepancies in the legal descriptions and the accompanying maps. Also, the Board had asked that the City meet with Deschutes River Woods residences and this has not happened. Juniper Ridge and the Pine Nursery should not have been included. Commissioner Daly said that a big issue was whether to include Deschutes River Woods. Ms. Craghead replied that this is part of the reason for a continuance. She said that the hearing can be continued for a brief period of time and still meet the election deadlines. She asked that the hearing be continued to Monday, August 18. Commissioner Luke asked for testimony; none was offered. The hearing was continued to the Monday, August 18 Board business meeting. 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (Continued from August 6), and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2008 -025, Making Certain Determinations and Findings Relating to and Approving the Bend Municipal Airport Urban Renewal Plan (Plan and Report). Mr. Kanner noted that the City has requested some clarifications relating to the report attached to the Ordinances; Page 6, section D -1, should say a 75 foot wide runway. Another change is in Section 7, and should be 30,000 pounds and not 15,000 pounds. The hearing should formally be closed at the end of today's hearing as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 4 of 12 Pages Commissioner Daly said that today's Bulletin talks about extending the runway to 7,000 feet. Susan Palmeri, Airport Manager, said that the quote regarding extending the runway was given by a tenant at the airport, and any change of this type would have to go through the master plan process. Ms. Palmeri said that this process involves agencies, tenants and others with an interest in what goes on at the airport. The City has to approve changes but the County's comprehensive plan is involved. Bill Sager, who lives on Gosney Road, said he is opposed to the Plan. He asked that it not be supported, and feels that it is a funding scheme. He feels the message sent to the residents of DC is that funds will be removed from one place to do this. About $57,000 in critical services would be moved from critical services to the airport. Commissioner Luke stated that it does not affect these programs. Mr. Sager said that the concern would be that the funds would be taken from other entities. Gladys Biglor stated that she lives on Cody Road, and is concerned about the Board approving the proposal which has not had adequate review. (She submitted her testimony in writing.) Commissioner Luke noted that many of the things Ms. Biglor has talked about could proceed without benefit of the Urban Renewal Plan anyway. Commissioner Luke said that this is a funding mechanism, and before any funds are spent the Urban Renewal Board has to decide what it will be used for and how they will be bonded. No projects are being approved, and approving the District does not automatically mean the individual projects will proceed. Mr. Kanner said that once the Plan is approved, the projects are prioritized and bonding is pursued, but the individual projects are not automatically approved. John Russell observed that when funds are borrowed, the projects to be funded by those funds have to be identified. These can only include those that are already in the Plan. He said that this Plan has no ability to circumvent general planning laws or land use laws. Commissioner Melton stated that there is no hearing required for each bonding discussion. She asked if the master plan has to be completed to proceed with selling bonds. Mr. Russell replied that if bonds are sold, anything done has to be consistent with the existing master plan and land use laws. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 5 of 12 Pages Mr Kanner added that the District does not change anything with regard to land use law at the Airport. A master plan is required and development has to be consistent with the plan. Commissioner Melton asked why the master plan isn't' completed first, prior to the Urban Renewal District being approved. Mr. Russell said that the projects are the best estimated at this point. They know the master plan will have to be changed and completed before some of the projects can proceed. The dollar amounts cannot change, however. Commissioner Daly stated that most of the projects listed relate to safety, and he has no problem with proceeding with approval. Ms. Biglor feels that the process is not being handled properly, since the master planning process should happen first. Commissioner Luke said that a master plan change would include public testimony. He pointed out that most airports are outside the city limits for obvious reasons. Ms. Biglor said that some questions need to be asked by the Board about various projects and how they fit within the airport planning process. She is also concerned about previous testimony regarding impacts to the fire protection district. There are individuals who look for approval for all of the changes for economic gain or safety, but others may consider them in a different light and these should be involved in the comprehensive plan process. An individual last week said that growth at the airport should be expected and accepted. She hopes that any growth will be handled well. She urged rejection of the proposal as written and not consider just short-term benefits without looking at long -term needs. She would like other things included in the plan. Erik Kropp said the County's Comprehensive Plan is in the process of being updated, and encouraged the public to be involved in this process. Patrick Gisler testified that there is an existing, approved master plan for the airport which has already been updated several times. The County adopted the zoning ordinance, which includes the airport zoning and airport- related industries in that zone. There is no lack of planning in this regard. Any of the improvements proposed are in the existing plan but may need land use approval. The master plan itself can be updated at any time. A number of the projects are already identified in the existing master plan. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 6 of 12 Pages He feels that the airport should always try to be a good neighbor. There can be conflicts related to noise and traffic. The airport ahs been there a long time and everyone living nearby knows it is there. Traffic will be dealt with by the process. It is naive to assume that the airport will never grow and that vacant land around the airport will never been needed by or used by the airport. The airport will grow along with the community, with increased traffic and noise. The Commissioners have to balance the needs of the public with the needs of the airport's jobs and users. Gary Miller testified, and is president of the local Oregon Pilots Association. The Association has been involved in the master planning process for many years. There are frequent meetings with airport users, the FAA and other citizens. Most of this has been done by the City, tenants and users. County residents might feel a little left out of the process. The County should be more involved, though. Commissioner Luke stated that the land use process is very involved and very public. Sometimes the communications between the City and County is not consistent but the County has not dropped the ball. Mr. Miller said that the airport has grown to a large employer, a $500 million a year benefit to the area. Jobs are being lost to other areas and to overseas, and it is important to encourage and manage growth in the County. Commissioner Melton asked when the master plan was last updated. Ms. Palmeri replied in 2004. The entire plan was reviewed in 1994 -98, but the scope is now being looked at again. Commissioner Daly said that he attended meetings in 2001, after he was elected to office. Dick Ridenour, President of the Board of Directors of Rural Fire Protection District No. 2, said that he believes there has been plenty of testimony regarding fire protection. His concern is that funding mechanism is being considered and if it has an impact on the City's general fund, this impacts the Distinct as well. The City already has difficulty with the general fund and reduced its contribution to the fire fund. Nothing should be done that might make it more difficult for the District's ability to received funds in and in turn provide services provided by the District. He urged the Board not to approve anything that would negatively impact the City's emergency services agencies. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 7 of 12 Pages Commissioner Daly had to leave the meeting at this time. Ron Ladd of the Rural Fire Protection District then spoke. He said there is some confusion about the issue. He spoke with Roger Lee of EDCO and others in regard to an urban renewal district, and enterprise zones. They are two different tings. They encourage the enterprise zone. On December 5, 2007, Ms. Palmeri testified to the City regarding the income generated by the airport. He said the City of Redmond Urban Renewal Agency cannot tell the County what to do. That is why the County agency was requested for Bend. This puts the County as the District. If the contract with the District does not stay in place, the County will have to step up since the City cannot. Mr. Russell explained that the enterprise zone helps certain manufacturing businesses by giving them a five -year property tax exemption on improvements. Hangars would not qualify for enterprise zone benefits. Scot Langton, County Assessor, said that if the community is 100,000 or less, and the airport is on City land, the land is exempt from property taxes, but the improvements are not. As the City of Bend grows, that threshold could be exceeded. Mr. Ladd said there are fewer than 50 enterprise zones in the State. Commissioner Luke stated that there are many requests of the legislature but few are granted. Tom Fay, Manager of the Fire District, stated that by contract, both parties put the same amount into a fire fund — the City of Bend and the District. The employees are City of Bend, as is the equipment. The stations are owned by the District. He clarified that some verbiage in the plan has been made, but that does not mean that the entire District is in agreement with the Plan. Commissioner Melton pointed out that the funding cannot be used for personnel expenses. Mr. Kanner said that he and Mr. Pilliod are working with City staff relating to the City's responsibilities in this regard. The last draft contains language that deals specifically with liability for the bonds, which makes the City responsible for the bonds. This should be ready by the August 27 meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 8 of 12 Pages Commissioner Melton asked how the County could deny something that the City would be liable for. Mr. Russell stated that the City would actually sell the bonds, with an agreement with the County Urban Renewal Agency to pledge its support of the bonds. Commissioner Luke stated that the City would make up the difference if any between the income and debt service. Mr. Russell said in regard to impacts on the general fund, the Plan supports economic growth at the airport and will provide a match for FAA funds. Those FAA matches have been being absorbed in the past. The City Council authorized funding for the airport out of the general fund, and this will provide another source of funding in this regard. In the long term this will help the drain on the general fund by providing other capital. Mr. Kanner pointed out that the timelines being considered are a goal and it is unlikely this will make it to the 2008 tax roll. Commissioner Luke said that the job of the Commissioners is to provide balance. He shares the concerns of the speakers about the financial impact on the Sheriff's Office and other entities. Most urban renewal districts require local government to give up some revenue. Commissioner Melton said that she is not sure there are two votes to move forward on this today, so perhaps the public hearing should not be closed at this point. Mr. Kanner said that it is a land use action and a definitive closing of the record is required at some point. Commissioner Melton said she assumes there won't be additional information that would need to be added to the record at this time. Mr. Kanner stated they have done what they can to change language in the Plan to address the concerns of the Fire District regarding finances. There is probably no way to address these concerns through the Plan itself. Commissioner Melton asked if they can work on a case by case basis with private entities to mitigate some of these issues; for instance, at the time of a land use action. Under item 2, health and safety, goes against what the Fire District has said. Mr. Kanner said that Legal Counsel would have to answer these questions. Commissioner Melton stated that traffic mitigation happens all the time. Commissioner Luke asked if there is more time to discuss this. Mr. Kanner said that the Agency should be in place to capture new revenue in 2009, but it is too late to do this for 2008. The goal would be to make sure the ordinance is effective in time for certification for 2009. Mr. Langton stated that it should be certified by early October 2009, so the process has to be complete prior to then. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 9 of 12 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if the hearing is closed, can information still be submitted, and can they still meet in work sessions with city staff. Mr. Kanner said the intergovernmental agreement makes it clear that the City will administer the Plan. Commissioner Luke asked that the hearing be left open until the Monday, August 18 meeting so that legal questions can be answered in the meantime. The hearing was continued to the Board business meeting on Monday, August 18. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Item #14 was removed from the consent agenda since these requests have not yet been reviewed, as well as the August 6 meeting minutes. MELTON: Move approval as amended. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 8. Signature of Document No. 2008 -447, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services regarding Publishing and Distribution Services 9. Signature of Document No. 2008 -458, an Application to Receive Oregon Department of Veterans' Affairs Funds 10. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -123, Transferring Appropriation in the General Fund and a Reduction of Appropriation in the Building Services Fund 11. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Larry Malcom from the Board of Spring River Special Road District, and Thanking Him for His Service 12. Signature of a Letter Appointing John Moore to the Board of Spring River Special Road District, through June 30, 2011 Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 10 of 12 Pages 13. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meetings: July 28; August 6 • Work Session: July 9; July 21 14. Economic Development Grant Requests Sisters Organization for Activities and Recreation (SOAR) — ARTS Discovery at Sisters Middle School National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) — Judge Sol Wachtler Presentation CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9 -1 -1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District in the Amount of $10,292.69. MELTON: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION /4 -H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 16. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension /4 -H County Service District in the Amount of $2,169.68. MELTON: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 11 of 12 Pages RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 17. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $800,606.69. MELTON: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 18. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. DATED this 13th Day of August 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Dennis R. Luke, Chair Tammy Baney, Vice Chair ATTEST: Michael M. Daly, Commissioner Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Sign -in cards Exhibit B: Statement from Gladys Biglor Exhibit D: Statement from Peggy Carey (did not orally testify) Exhibit D: E -mail from John Russell regarding clarifications to the Report Exhibit E: Agenda Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 12 of 12 Pages IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: e • Phone #: E -mail Address: Date: \� - (-)E Subjectr_ IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to .a Co ty staff person. Name:V ) Mailing Address: „'TT. ) Phone #: E -mail Address: Date: I \Y.. Subject: ,, ., 5,:��1 it in to a County staff person. Name: ��Qays ��6 Mailing Address: oai-y ,v /s7r2uo 0/Z i7 ,moo/ Phone #: ft - E -mail Address: b f] v Mei .04-t Date: c9//J /z0 0 8 Subject: Pugti A4Ak,N4 2e4a {Zc'r✓c., ., t >/5 °% p2 -Po2— IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in t County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: RG- G4 77%08 Phone #: V( 3f —/g /6 E -mail Address: �d4.64®cp___,`, Date: g c� Subject: 2d, p;,/e_ 450tz.. 1:)//1- "papaw IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in t County s aff person. Name: Mailing Address: Phone #: E -mail Address: 1 3 >ject: R IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: FA reAck/ Mailing Address: 1,/ S vJJ uJeU. Phone #: 0 • ) E-mail Address: Date: M 2cog Subject: A. IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: iv t' Phone #: - E-mail Address: ) Date: .12 0 Subject: (:)08 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (Si. turn it in to a County staff person. Name: fit// ,5-4 635,e Mailing Address: 6/3-2,s- 6.-es4,14/ 927o Phone #: 3e(7-25 7 E-mail Address: Date: c?//y/e 8 Subject: :veet 69/vpdie,/ 69 s t-0 27'i Mer-Acm,:r "17 Public Input Proposed Urban Renewal District August 13, 2008 by Gladys I. Biglor 52139 Cody Rd Bend OR 97701 382 -0516 I am very concerned that the City of Bend is asking you the Deschutes County Urban Renewal Agena:y Officials to approve a package of proposals that have not been adequately developed nor have met thy: test for adequate and complete public scoping. The city appears to be asking you to approve a fundirg mechanism through an Urban Renewal District without first doing the necessary background assessment. Having read the complete plan the City has developed it appears to me that they are putting the cart before the horse. In other words this is proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing. In my 30+ years with the USDA Forest Service before our agency could break ground on any project we had to develop a series of documents (in a set order) to show that the projects not only were needl..d, but display the impacts of each projects to the public as well as the methods our agency planned to u,,e to mitigate the negative impacts and finally display the projected cost of each project. This way the public knew not only what they were getting but how much it was going to cost them. With this proposal the public has no understanding of what the funding impacts will be and when the next level will be flown for more taxes to make up for the taxes lost to the county through this Urban Renewal Plan. Most importantly though, before funding can be addressed I believe the following assessments & resulting documents must be developed in the order identified: 1. Our area should assess Airport Transportation needs within the greater Central Oregon Communities (Bend, LaPine, Madras, Redmond, and Sisters, along with their existing airports). This assessment would uncover the needs of all our communities and help community leader; determine the best location for the needs of the entire area as opposed to the piecemeal process we have now that pits city against city against counties. The entire Central Oregon area would win as well as the taxpayer. 2. A Bend Airport Role Determination to help with systematic planned growth. 3. An Updated Master Facility Plan 4. Programmatic Environmental Assessment 5. Capitol Improvement Plan 6. Funding Plan As I read the documents that the city has provided for you and the public it seems that you will be approving many projects that have not been identified in any systematic progressive way required b} NEPA. Beware - You may regret what you approve. Up to now as a concerned citizen, taxpayer, and neighbor of the airport I am alarmed by the piece meal development which has occurred and still is occurring at the airport. Without a clear role determination for the airport it is difficult for leaders and the public to determine if the airport is being used as desired. Who is calling the shots I have to ask? What is the predominant need and outlook for this airport? The Bend Airport Master Facility Plan is grossly outdated and is in critical need of an update. This plan drives any funding requests not the other way around. Environmental Assessments up to now have been piecemeal and rubber stamped. Recently Public input was ignored when it was pointed out that proposed development would have a critical impact on the Deschutes County transportation system and the citizens who use the roadways, which will lead to an increase in the need for, and cost to, emergency services. I know about this as I've seen and experienced how current employees of Epic and Cessna drive on Powell Butte Highway. Its pretty spooky. As a good citizen I believe that it isn't enough to sit back and complain but that I need to be a part of developing a great community. Thus I have been working with Susan and the City since September of last year to develop a Airport Advisory Committee that will help with airport planning. I believe this has resulted in positive steps taken by airport officials and commend Susan for her willingness to address neighbor concerns. Having said this I still am frustrated and confused by the lack of planning and the rush to development that has occurred and continues to occur at the airport. It is true that the City owns the airport property and determines the best use of the facility within the context of what the public (ALL THE PUBLIC not just the aviation community or the economic development community) desires. It is also important to note that the land surrounding the airport is private property zoned EFU under the jurisdiction of Deschutes County and State of Oregon regulation. The majority of the land surrounding the airport is irrigated of a productive soil classification. Do we really really want to erode our productive EFU lands by converting them into a aviation industrial park? This could be one of the many unintended consequence of approving this Urban Renewal District funding plan without a comprehensive assessment of the aviation needs in Central Oregon a role determination, an updated Master Plan, as well as public involvement and scoping. In the document titled Proposed Bend Municipal Airport Urban Renewal Plan the Bend airport is identified as becoming a part of the transportation network for Central Oregon and is categorized by the Oregon Department of Aviation as a High Activity Business and General Aviation airport. No were does it say that the Bend airport is rated for an aviation industrial park and yet this is what is occurring and will continue to occur without a comprehensive set of plans for the airport. The document goes on to say that the Bend "airport requires substantial public investment in infrastructure and facilities to continue to accommodate aviation activity growth and aviation - related industrial development. This statement alone is enough warning to the public to see that the city fully intends in turning the Bend airport into something it was never intended to be nor is wanted by aviation users and the neighbors. In speaking with the Airport Manager at our Redmond Airport — which is the airport developed to serve all of Central Oregon, there is adequate land available for industrial aviation development. The same is true at Madras and Prineville. I am sure that by developing a plan that takes all of the regions airports into consideration we can all win with increased economic development in all of the communities with the right aviation need at the right location. Lance Air successfully did this. Speaking with a former official of Lance air, he told me that he believed future aviation growth compatible with the surrounding area is to be found in Madras and Prineville, not at the Bend airport. I might add that the only funding mechanism identified in this plan is public county (tax payer funding). What happened to public - private joint ventures? With public money drying up as the economy takes a dive and the focus for public moneys being re- directed elseware the agency that I recently retired from (as well as the majority of non - entitlement federal departments) was required to investigate public - private ventures before looking to the public trough for money. If Cessna, Epic, and now additional aviation businesses are inclined to become vital members of our communities I would think that they would jump at the chance to aid themselves and their community especially by joining . in a three way partnership (City, County, and Private funding) especially when the money being requested is chump change in their line of business. In this same document under Goals and Objectives the goals displayed are not clear as to what is fully intended. For example what does all of these items really mean and what are the impacts to the entire community? I would venture to guess that given the wording used these goal include expanding the airport into the surrounding EFU land.. I believe the Department of Land Conservation and Development would not only be interested in this but would expect to have say in the concept. In this same document under Traffic and Transportation the wording used could be interpreted by the reader that the city intends to convert the Bend airport into something that is not desired by the community. Does the Bend airport have to provide access to the national air transportation system? What does this mean? What are the impacts? No one knows as the critical information is not displayed. And what does "improving and constructing streets to meet future development demands" mean. La3t time I checked the airport was surrounded by rural Deschutes county lands with roads not city streets Under Land Use 3C appears again to be identifying an intention to expand the airport (a proposal that has not been publically scoped — as mandated by government regulations) — and apparently now at Deschutes County taxpayers expense not the city's for acquisition of land and the public utility infrastructure needed to accommodate the enormous amount of industrial aviation growth that is secretly desired by the City of Bend!!! I'm sure the City will tell you that all this is for economic gain for the County as well as the city (isn't it nice to have ones hands is each others pockets) but I caution again....without adequate programmatic analysis. Do we grab at the short term gains not the long term gains for our community. Will we see another fatted calf be slaughtered such as we've seen with the timber industry, the housing industry, and soon to be seen by the banking industry. It is tragic to see all the greed that rushes into our area to take advantage of what the area has to give and then leave when they have saturated and destroyed the market. I fully expect to see the same with the aviation sector unless we develop well thought out regulation that will foster long term innovation and economic growth. AND: at what point is economic gain lost by urban blight at what point does the area surrounding the Bend Airport spiral downward into unintended environmental problems that include property devaluation (Deschutes county coffers will suffer) traffic congestion, increased environmentally harmful noise to livestock & humans, residential flight & rezoning of more and more of the area into an industrial zone complete with strip malls, and all the crime that goes with this type of development. No where & I mean no where is there any discussion of improvements that can be used by the community and especially by the neighbors in this Urban Renewal Plan. The airport is starting to look like down town Seattle skid row, the bums just haven't found the Bend airport yet however the graffiti taggers have. If the airport truly is in need of urban renewal funding at Deschutes taxpayers expense then the taxpayers deserve a beautiful well thought out development that takes the neighbors and the entire community into consideration — we see that in the plans for Juniper Ridge why not the Bend Airport? ? ?? With regard to the properties affected by greater than 65dB and 70 db noise; the options are to either purchase the properties (complete with buildings) or make improvements to mitigate the noise impacts. I for one do not want my tax dollars going to purchasing property to expand the city's airport. First the city needs to clearly identify what and how many properties they are speaking of and then they should utilize city funds to make the necessary improvements or purchase the property. Finally none of these properties existing zoning should be changed. Nor should existing conditional uses under EFU zoning be changed. In the document Outline of Major Urban Renewal Project Activities many of the identified projects are not identified under the current Bend Airport Master Plan. By approving the plan with the current list as is, you will be forcing the outcome of the Master Planning process along with the public input requirements of the Master Planning process (airport tower, widening and lengthening runway, increasing runway strength by increasing runway asphalt to accommodate heavier and noisier aircraft emergency services infrastructure). The current Master Plan does not address any of these items. I understand that last week Malen Hale testified that as a member of a previous airport advisory committee the committee recommended that the city not increase the capacity of the runway so as to maintain the airport for the smaller airplane user with less noise and urban congestion for the neighbors. I realize that advisory committees are just that, they provide advice to the leaders that can be accepted or rejected but I have to ask you, by approving this proposal you may be condemning the Bend airport to the industrial aviation sector and pushing out all of the users that have made this airport great, one that the neighbors can be as proud of as can county and city officials. I understand that the Rural Fire Protection District #2 /Bend Fire Department would be jeopardized by this proposal. This news is alarming as 1 pay taxes for fire protection and expect to have timely service when I need it. Every property owner within District #2 should be made aware of this before you accept this proposal as written or amended by the city. Having served on the Budget Committee for Rural Fire District #2, I know how limited but adequate that budget has been. The Board and Budget committee worked hard to stretch limited dollars to complete the newly constructed fire stations to meet current and future needs. Right now the budget is even not adequate to provide full staffing at all stations (Tumalo station is not maintained with full staffing at all times). The fire Chief has recently put the community on notice that future budgeting is tight and all needs may not bi, met. Where will the funding come for a new fire station at the airport with the specialized equipment and training such this station would need. Will the citizens be asked to fund two fire District's? Hov much would construction of a station for the airport cost? How much would it cost to fully staff and train personnel? What unintended consequences would develop if the airport created a separate fire District with separate facilities and staff? It clearly appears that the City has not adequately assessed, nor can even disclose, the impacts on this section of the plan. I don't see how you can approve this plan when there are so many unanswered questions and unknown impacts with little disclosure to the public and with little opportunity for the public to adequately understand and respond. On page 15 under Future Amendments to Plan in subset D it states that "amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive plan and or Deschutes County development code that affect the Plan and or the Area shall be incorporated automatically within the Plan without any separate action required by the Agency or the county commission ". This statement is like pissing in the wind. This basically means that we don't know how the development being requested effects the Deschutes Count y Plan but we'll just change the County plan to meet the airport needs and vise versa should the county plan under the current 2030 plan update mess up or conflict with the airport development plans in progress or already completed. On page 16 under Chapter 23.52: Economy, the document speaks glowingly on how the proposed projects meet county plan goals. That is true under one alternative interpreted by individuals and companies that wants to see the projects happen. Another individual could equally argue that the proposals degrade the economic goals of Deschutes county. This underscores the necessity for comprehensive good planning with alternatives and necessary public scoping. I can say the same for each of the items in this section. Mater Planning, Environmental Impact Assessments resulting in accurate, honest and believable Capitol Improvement Plans and funding requests alleviate problems and unintended consequences. Included in the economic development picture, the airport identifies 18 aviation related businesses located at the Bend airport. It does not identify these businesses. The Plan also does not disclose how many and what type of businesses are located at the airport that are not aviation related - a serious situation that airport officials admit has been going on for quite a while. Where in the proposal does t identity the steps airport officials will take to ensure that current violators are ousted and that monitoring will continually occur in the future to ensure that businesses operating at the Bend airport meets the aviation business test. What about property values. With the expansion of the airport that this proposal demands anyone trying to sell their property now may as well kiss their checkbook goodbye. The likelihood that anyone will want to purchase EFU in this area is slim to none. Current real estate companies had better be telling prospective buyers about airport expansion plans under the truth in selling legal requirements should you approve this Urban Renewal Plan as is. You had better also gear up your land appraisal department for a flood of requests from owners seeing the value of their real estate sink. It would be highway robbery for the county to expect the same tax values to be maintained once you approve this proposal. No where in this plan does it disclose the negative impacts on adjacent real estate values that will affect neighbors and the county coffers. Under Safety and Health the plan does not clearly disclose why the public must be protected and how fencing will be installed to meet this undisclosed need and yet maintain the beautify of the area — a concept never addressed. Are we going to have a skid row airport that puts money in the pockets of large corporations or will we have something the community can be proud of like a Juniper Ridge tylre airport compete with water fountains, green space and areas for the public to enjoy their aviation community? We don't know given what information has provided The citizens of Deschutes County are being asked to fund an unknown! Are we supposed to take it on faith that the city has our best interests at heart? I don't mean to belittle any of our city or county officials but having worked in government for 30+ years I don't believe one damn word unless it is clear to me what is being proposed — and this plan doesn't meet the clarity test let alone the NEPA test. And not to just pick on government I also have seen a good share of fiasco's developed by the private sector without adequate and comprehensive planning. The fact that it is being suggested that if this plan is approved that Nelson Road will again have to be re- aliened underscores my point. Good planning identifies needs ahead of time so that you don't have to go back in multiple times to fix situations that no longer fit. How many times does the taxpayer have to pay for a transportation system that works out at the Airport. Many times if we continue to approve this type of piece meal planning. Thus Nelson Road as well as other roads will need to be fixed twice and maybe more. And what about the intersection of Neff/Alfalfa Mkt Road with Powell Butte Road. This is one of the most dangerous intersections in the county and :i it is never addressed in any recent EA's as well as this Plan. I strongly suggest that you do not believe that what you think will happen given this plan actually wily I've found additional holes in this plan such as figure 4: this map does not address the criteria that was used to develop the noise contours. Does the contours identify noise as related to existing aircraft using the airport or the heavier & noisier aircraft that would be allowed if this plan is approved? Then there is figure 5: (although it is not identified by any number only as the Urban Renewal Area Land Ownership map) it is my understanding that the area identified in blue in the southern section of the renewal area boundary was purchased by the city to meet FAA safety requirements under the first expansion of the runway and the remaining two sections in green were not needed to meet FAA safety requirements. The proposal identifies these parcels for purchase but it is not clear to the taxpayer if purchasing the properties and relocating the individuals who live there (renters) is cheaper than the cost of mitigating the impacts. It is also unclear if other parcels of private property are included for purchase in this plan. If I understand it correctly it appears that the City is asking the county taxpayers to fund the airport Master Planning process that would rubber stamp everything that is in the plan. That doesn't seem right to me when I am helping to fund an adequate and better airport just down the road called the Redmond Airport and their Master Planning efforts. It seems to me that the City should be funding the Bend Airport Master Planning process as well as the complete set of comprehensive planning analysis I identified in the beginning of this talk. Bottom line, this proposal is rife with hazards & unintended consequences because it does not clearly disclose to the public nor to you the Urban Renewal Agency the intentions and impacts. I would be astounded, even angry, if the FAA approved funding for the projects in this plan that have not met NEPA standards with an array of alternatives the public and community leaders can choose from, and the required public scoping with all the data (not a fraction of it which happened in this case), displaying all critical impacts with proposed mitigation for each alternative. In fact if the FAA approves funding than I will definitely believe that the FAA is in the pockets of any and all aviation business that come along and are willing to ignore the safety and health of the general public. I also believe that if this proposal is accepted it could easily be legally challenged in a court of law & the challengers would win. I understand that one individual last week said that everyone who is "bitching" about airport growth should get used to it and cited Greenwood Avenue as his comparison. Is this the type of growth we want at our Bend Airport? If so that we surely do need a urban renewal district as Greenwood Ave. i a great example of some of the worst type of growth our city has spawned. I would counter that with well thought out analysis and regulation we could have the Juniper Ridge type of growth at the Bend airport — aviation growth that it welcomed by the small recreational and business airport user, the larger airport aviation users and well as the neighbors and the entire community. This type of analysis would also result in greater economic gains for our entire region not just Bend. I urge you to reject the proposal as written and demand the type of quality analysis that is needed by the public and public officials. Do not be willing to sell your soul for the short term. Bend and Central Oregon not only deserves better than this, they can get it as many business are looking to more to our dynamic community. These are businesses wanting to be here for the long run, willing to be beneficial partners in our community working for the community good as well as their own company good. These are the businesses that understand that well thought out regulation fosters innovation and excellent economic growth. These are businesses that do not threaten to pull out at the drop of a economic hat. Thank You for the opportunity to provide this testimony to you. e at„. Gladys I. Biglor To County Commission: Dennis Luke, Chair Tammy Baney Melton, Vice Chair Mike Daley, Commissioner Respectfully submitted From: Peggy Carey, Citizen 541- 382 -0394 62111 Cody Rd. Bend, Or 97701 Re: Public Comment regarding Bend Municipal Airport Urban Renewal Plan Public Benefit: Has an economic assessment been done that confirms the financial benefit to the community from the development of the Bend Municipal Airport? Should private industry fund the proposed development? It appears as though Cessna will be the primary beneficiary of this development. Will the citizens of Deschutes County benefit from this investment? Why would Deschutes County citizens fund, through taxes in whatever form, development of Bend aviation industry over Redmond which also has a master plan to develop aviation services? Why does the plan speak about protecting the Airport from encroachment but does not address the impact of development on the neighboring and distant community? Does the plan adequately address the safety issues, such as fire protection, that are inherent in an airport of the projected size with the additional businesses? The current number of jobs has been reported at 1500. Please confirm by business current and projected. Page 1 of 1 Dave Kanner From: JRussell @ci.bend.or.us Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:58 AM To: Dave Kanner Cc: Elaine Howard; spalmeri @ci.bend.or.us Subject: Technical changes in Report on Renewal Plan Adoption Dave: doubt if anyone would notice, but I want to enter two clarifications in the Report for the record. They are: Page 6: B 1. Infrastructure: Change "75 ft." runway to "75 ft, wide by 5,200 ft long" Page 11:7 Runway Upgrading: Change "15,000 lbs." to "30,000 lbs." John R. Russell, AICP Director Urban Renewal /Economic Development City of Bend PO Box 431 710 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97709 phone - 541- 312 -4913 fax - 541 - 385 -6676 8/11/2008 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, AUGUST 13, 2008 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 Order No. 2008 -077, Establishing Rates for Franchised Collection of Solid Waste and Recyclables in Unincorporated Areas of Deschutes County — Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department 3. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Document No. 2008 -427, a Contract with Justice Systems Corporation regarding the Jail Security Electronics Remodeling Project — Susan Ross, Property and Facilities 4. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2008 -454, an Amendment to an Option Agreement with Silvan Power Company to Extend the Option Period on Property in the La Pine Industrial Park — Susan Ross, Property and Facilities 5. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -022, Amending County Code to Add Recreational Vehicles as Temporary Residences for Medical Conditions — Kristen Maze, Community Development 6. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2008- 076, Forming the Bend Area Transportation District and Placing a Measure on the November 4, 2008 Ballot — Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 1 of 6 Pages 7. A PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from August 6), and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2008 -025, Making Certain Determinations and Findings Relating to and Approving the Bend Municipal Airport Urban Renewal Plan (Plan and Report) — Dave Kanner, County Administrator; John Russell, City of Bend CONSENT AGENDA 8. Signature of Document No. 2008 -447, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services regarding Publishing and Distribution Services 9. Signature of Document No. 2008 -458, an Application to Receive Oregon Department of Veterans' Affairs Funds 10. Signature of Resolution No. 2008 -123, Transferring Appropriation in the General Fund and a Reduction of Appropriation in the Building Services Fund 11. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Larry Malcom from the Board of Spring River Special Road District, and Thanking Him for His Service 12. Signature of a Letter Appointing John Moore to the Board of Spring River Special Road District, through June 30, 2011 13. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meetings: July 28; August 6 • Work Session: July 9; July 21 14. Economic Development Grant Requests • Sisters Organization for Activities and Recreation (SOAR) — ARTS Discovery at Sisters Middle School • National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) — Judge Sol Wachtler Presentation CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9 -1 -1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 15. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 2 of 6 Pages CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION /4 -H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 16. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4 -H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 17. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 18. 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.) Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, August 18, 2008 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 12 noon Regular Meeting of Board of Commissioners and Department Directors 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Pages Wednesday, August 20.. 2008 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:00 a.m. Meeting with Commission on Children & Families Board; Interview Candidates Monday, August 25, 2008 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:00 p.m. Joint Meeting of Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission Monday, September 1, 2008 Most County offices will be closed to observe the Labor Day Holiday Wednesday, September 3, 2008 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 4, 2008 10:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with District Attorney 11:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Community Development Department 1:30 p.m. Quarterly Meeting with the Road Department Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Pages Monday, September 8,2008 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, September 10, 2008 10 :00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, in Redmond 11:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Mental Health Department 1:00 p.m. Quarterly Meeting with Health Department Monday, September 15, 2008 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with City of Bend Council Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:00 a.m. Public Affairs Counsel Conference Call — Legislative Update 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing on a Proposed Code Amendment regarding Destination Resort Requirements (Aspen Lakes) Thursday, September 18, 2008 9:00 a.m. Semi - annual Meeting with the County Clerk 10:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Community Justice Monday, September 22, 2008 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 Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Pages Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Fair & Expo Center 10:00 a.m. Semi - annual Meeting with Assessor 11:00 a.m. Quarterly Meeting with Commission on Children & Families Monday, September 29, 2008 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 1, 2008 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 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, August 13, 2008 Page 6 of 6 Pages