Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-14 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 1 of 16 For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Scott Johnson and Jane Smilie, Health Services; Nick Lelack, Community Development; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Dave Doyle, John Laherty and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Sgt. Nathan Garibay, Sheriff’s Office; Judith Ure and Sharon Ross, Administration; and seven other citizens, including media representative Elon Glucklich of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:43 p.m. __________________________ 1. Discussion of School-based Health Center at Bend Senior High. Scott Johnson and Jane Smilie presented a handout with information on this item. (A copy is attached for reference.) Ms. Smilie hopes to open the center in spring 2015. She gave background on the grant and the program. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 2 of 16 It was explained that the County and Mosaic have had great relationship over the years. Families and students appreciate this kind of service. Elaine Knobbs added that there is a location in Prineville, and one at Lynch School in Redmond. Linda Webb stated that they would write a business plan. The State has guaranteed funding for this program. Commissioner Unger appreciates this partnership. There was an expectation to help them get started and not assist them forever, but things have changed a lot in public health. He asked if Mosaic would be taking over this work eventually. Mr. Johnson said that all would have a medical sponsor, either the Prineville health clinic, Mosaic or St. Charles Medical Center. All centers will have a behavioral health component. Mr. Anderson said each would be examined to see how they are progressing in view of the original model. Commissioner DeBone asked if there is a State movement towards this kind of service structure. Mr. Johnson replied that it is often triggered by legislation, and they encouraging work together. There is a continued interest in expanding. UNGER: Move approval to apply for the implementation grant. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 2. Approval of Grant Application for Emergency Management Program. Sgt. Nathan Garibay oversees Emergency Management Services at the Sheriff’s Office. They plan to apply for this annual grant, which covers 50% of the costs; the rest is covered through matching funds from the Sheriff’s Office. This involves federal money through the Stafford Act, and the State funnels the money through to the County. They have to do regular reporting and submit a financial request for reimbursement. UNGER: Move approval of this grant application. DEBONE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 3 of 16 VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Continued Discussion regarding Lobbyist Services. Commissioner Unger said he has no clear understanding of what this entails. There is a lot of confusion at the AOC level, as they do some of this already. Chair Baney noted there is probably no simple way to do this. The Board has not done a great job of clarifying what it wants, either. Judith Ure said that she checked with other jurisdictions, and found that most develop a legislative plan that includes more than just following bills. This happens in the interim when they are outside of session. She provided a matrix showing what other jurisdictions do. Counties with more than 300,000 population have a lobbyist on staff. Some of that staff does other things also. At the lower tier, Linn County is a good comparison; they work with Public Affairs Counsel also, year round, and just renewed their contract for $49,500. They do a fair amount of work just on statewide issues. Deschutes County pays $36,000 now for essentially the same services. Klamath County also uses them. The smaller counties rely on AOC for this kind of help. Commissioner Unger stated that a lobbyist could offer more benefits by dealing directly with legislators, while local staff cannot do this. Ms. Ure noted that some do not feel AOC has the same clout as a lobbyist firm. Lobbyists have greater access to the decision-makers. Commissioner Unger said that the County needs to better educate local legislators and staff, and try to get more support from them. Commissioner Baney asked if the Board want to change the contract this year. She noted that Mark Nelson has sold the business to J.L. Wilson; Mr. Nelson said that Deschutes County is a favorite client. Mr. Anderson was directed to invite Mr. Wilson to visit. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 4 of 16 Ms. Ure explained that larger counties have dedicated staff for this. This County is not large enough yet. Mr. Anderson said they could try to tally up what staff spends in Salem, which may be worth a full time FTE or more. Ms. Ure said some have people writing memos or following issues. Mr. Anderson added that most of the lobbyists are close to Salem so it is easier to attend hearings and meetings. Ms. Ure stated that some counties need a local presence if they are located too far away to make it viable to be there very often. Chair Baney said she wants staff to be involved, since they know what is needed. Commissioner Unger stated that a generalist is not always the best option. Chair Baney noted that they may see a better outcome on policy choices if the County is willing to invest towards this. Ms. Ure said that in- house lobbyists have the connections, but staff here might have the same. Commissioner DeBone stated that it is nice to walk into the building and meet with the lobbyist who knows who should be contacted and met. He does not see one person being able to do this, and it would be better to have a team. Chair Baney said that they let go of the federal lobbyist years ago. The federal piece was more issue specific and not necessarily year-round. A lobbyist should not work this way. Legislative staff says they see value in meeting with constituents and Commissioners. Chair Baney asked about budgeting funds for this purpose. Mr. Anderson replied that some items are allocated to departments through the general fund. Ms. Ure said that it is felt that grant money or internal services funds should not be used for this. Ms. Ure stated that in regard to federal issues, she wanted to know if the Board wants it done differently. Most agencies use this type of lobbyist for specific issues. Commissioner Unger noted that it is often helpful to support other groups that are dealing with a certain issue. Ms. Ure said they could determine ahead of time what the biggest issues are and develop strategies for them. They would involve the appropriate departments. They would need ground rules and a way to develop strategies. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 5 of 16 Commissioner Unger stated that an example could be childcare. They could find out who has the same interests and try to form partnerships. They need to find out what other groups are doing. They do not necessarily have to support them monetarily, but could engage with them for a greater impact. Erik Kropp asked if he should develop a contract with PAC that outlines the scope of work. Chair Baney said she is worried about them feeling the need to increase the cost. Commissioner DeBone said he was involved in a biomass discussion last week. He is interested in new technologies and small-scale industry in this regard. He needs to know if the Board would support this direction. It is not reactive to a bill at this time. Chair Baney is supportive to keeping the status quo, but look at refining this after the session. They may have to pay more in the future. 4. St. Vincent de Paul (La Pine) Request for Loan Forgiveness. Ms. Ure said that St. Vincent de Paul in La Pine has asked for the $5,000 loan to them to be forgiven. The County had offered land that this group decided they did not want. Funds were loaned for a survey and land use costs for a different parcel that the group preferred. They were to pay the costs back once they split the property and sold off part of it. Their intent is now to expand the facilities there and not sell a portion of the land.. Chair Baney asked if they could pay the $5,000 back at the time they sell property. Mr. Kropp said that this could take ten years, and a different Board of Commissioners might feel differently about it. Commissioner Unger asked about extending the maturity date instead, to perhaps 2016. Commissioner DeBone agreed. Commissioner Unger said that they came to the County, who honored their request, but they have a new board and their attitude is different. They need to stick with this, but it could be extended.. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 6 of 16 Commissioner DeBone stated that the County should not just write it off, but it is his hometown and he is hearing about it. Ms. Ure said they could be asked if there have been any changes; whether they have a plan for the parcel to use it, or are they going to sell it. If they had to pay, where would they get the funds. She asked if the loan should be restructured. They think this is a discretionary grant, but there is a note tied to the property. Commissioner DeBone noted that they got a grant on top of this at the time. UNGER: Move that the loan agreement be continued through 2016. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 5. Discussion of Request for Fee Waiver (Shepherd). (This item was taken as the third item and was audio recorded.) Nick Lelack presented requests from Mr. Shepherd, one being for a fee waiver for Hearing Officer’s expenses; another to hold Code Enforcement in abeyance for the summer; and a request for the Board to do a direct review of the application rather than having it go through the regular channels. He referred to a staff report. Regarding Board review of the land use applications, under Code, the first reviewing body has to be staff or a Hearings Office, after which the Board could call it up or it could be handled through an appeal by the applicant. The Board could direct the process to be followed. If the Board so directs a review, the Hearings Officer’s fee would not be charged to the applicant. Ms. Craghead stated that the applicant wants the Board to direct staff to deliver an administrative decision and then the Board to call it up for a hearing. Mr. Lelack said that this would mean one public hearing before the Board, and no fee from the applicant would be required. He provided options at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 7 of 16 Chair Baney said there had been a previous application that did not come to the Board. She asked if there would be another application, which may be similar to the first one. She wanted to know if they are starting out from zero or if there is reference material to help minimize costs. She asked if there has been a site plan review. Mr. Lelack said there are elements of the previous decision from 2013 that would be relevant. It is not known if it will be the same application or if there would be changes; this is up to Mr. Shepherd. Otherwise, they can refer to the previous application, especially in regard to a private park. A site plan application was not submitted or reviewed, and this was a concern of the Hearings Officer. The site plan is needed to help identify how to address neighborhood issues, such as traffic and other potential concerns. It is an integrated process. Ms. Craghead added that if the Hearings Officer’s decision had been appealed, the Board could have heard this. However, the applicant would have had to pay a fee to file an appeal. Staff could make a decision based on the Hearings Officer’s decision, but the Board could, on review, confirm or reverse staff’s decision. Chair Baney said an administrative decision is not done before the public. Mr. Lelack said public comment is solicited for these, from agencies, departments and the public from within the notification area. Staff uses these comments to come to a decision. There is just not a hearing per se. Chair Baney stated that the fees so far cover an applicatio n. She is leaning towards a waiver for that fee since there has already been a hearing, decision and findings. She would like to use this previous body of work. However, she knows the site plan review is a new and necessary cost that has to be done. The Hearings Officer’s deposit shows $750 held back. She wanted to know what has been paid so far. Mr. Lelack said the Hearings Officer means a deposit but the applicant is responsible for that much, and more if it costs more. Therefore, Mr. Shepherd owes money to the County for this. Chair Baney stated that this is not an easy application, since it is a complex issue. The costs that are currently owed would need to be paid. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 8 of 16 Commissioner Unger noted that this is a business that also involves land use. When he looks at the Hearings Officer’s deposit, there is a body of work that can be used so it could reduce costs in other areas. There would be a refund due if there were less work required. The site plan review has to be paid. A conditional use permit for a park is another question. He is not sure if this is the right thing to do, except this gives a big picture look and could set the model for how it might be done elsewhere. Ms. Craghead stated that an administrative decision and the Board’s time would not be financially covered. This would be a cost borne by CDD and the Board. It is not cost-free. Chair Baney asked about a letter from Mr. Shepherd that quotes paying over $8,500 in fees and fines. There was not an appeal so this is frustrating. In land use, you do or you don’t, but she is not sure about taking $2,300 for another appeal. Mr. Lelack said he has not done a full accounting of the costs to date but those might not all be County charges. Mr. Anderson said they do not have a new application, so don’t know what new proposal might be in it. Therefore, they won’t know to what extent the old decision and information might be helpful. He asked if the Board is considering a waiver of some portion of the fee. Mr. Shepherd would appreciate some certainty, but the Board needs to have adequate information. Chair Baney asked if there was a pre-application process done. Mr. Lelack said they should have a pre-application meeting as soon as possible to find out how extensive the application might be. Chair Baney asked if site plan review fees have to be paid. She is willing to allow for more discussion on better defining the plan. If the scope is near what was submitted before or a review the aspects show that they were already presented, can they adjust the fee if much of it is the same. Commissioner Unger feels they need to have the pre -application fee. Chair Baney said it is hard to get this before the Board. Innocent people are being caught in the middle of this and could be damaged. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 9 of 16 Commissioner Unger stated the County may not be able to keep these people out of limbo. Even if the Board goes forward, it could be appealed anyway. Commissioner DeBone feels the site plan review can stand alone, but the applicant could proceed with a CUP application. He asked for clarification as to whether this would be a Hearings Officer or administrative decision. Mr. Lelack said it would be the same process as with the limited use permit. This is getting into new ground with State law. Commissioner Unger stated there could be no additional fee, but what about the cost of staff time. Commissioner DeBone said there is normally a fee. Mr. Lelack said they could meet with the applicant this week to get a sense of the application. Other staff has to be involved as well. A key point is how the Hearings Officer addressed the uses, but it was hard to evaluate without a site plan review in place. Ms. Craghead added that the application also changed mid-course and the use was expanded considerably. Mr. Anderson stated that they need to evaluate whether Mr. Shepherd has formulated the application and is prepared for a pre -application meeting so they will know what the proposal looks like. Mr. Shepherd said he is ready to pay for the site plan review. He does not think it would take long. He wants to know what staff would like to see. Mr. Lelack said they may be able to talk about some of this later today. Commissioner DeBone asked if they will get to a point where the administrative decision is approved or denied. Ms. Craghead said the Board review would keep them from having to appeal and pay an appeal fee. The Board could affirm or reverse the decision. Mr. Lelack stated that the timeframe depends on when the comp lete application is filed after site plan review. Other agencies have to review and provide comments. It then has to be assembled and that can take 20 to 30 days. It could then take two to four weeks to prepare the decision, and during that time, they would need to coordinate with the Board to schedule an Order to call up the decision. Ms. Craghead added that it has to be called up within twelve days, with a ten-day notice posted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 10 of 16 Commissioner DeBone said there are three fees. Site plan review is stand alone, and there are permits. Mr. Lelack stated he would work with Counsel directly knowing this will go to an appeal. Commissioner Unger commented that this is a business, and business owners should pay for what they want. They are making money. They may be able to reduce some costs through what was already done. The people who want their weddings will be in limbo, but there appears no way to rush this through. The Board has been supported in the past of other applicants moving forward if progress is being made in refining the process. Chair Baney stated that an application last year was held over for Code enforcement, with a list of events for the year (the Downs application). Unfortunately, events have already been booked through 2014. The question is, do they hold Code enforcement in abeyance for 2014. Commissioner Unger said he is open to this, as they have allowed an extension in the past. He is willing to do this again at the same level. This is a business and people should know what is expected of them, and should be p rofessional. Chair Baney stated that this is very unfortunate because the people on the list who are planning their events have no idea that it is not allowed by State law. She has met with Mr. Shepherd, and realizes they should not have continued booking events knowing they did not have a permit or clearance to do so. This is a business risk. What is really unfortunate is that it puts the County in the position of not supporting the needs of the public. She would like to look at other options or remedies. If a business is not an allowed use but there is a process underway to deal with it, she wanted to know what else could be done. The Board could decide not to seek an injunction, but the business could continue to be fined. Ms. Craghead said there was a question about the fine, $2,000, except the presumptive fine could be less, per the citation. The Judge could go up to $2,000 for each infraction. Commissioner DeBone asked about the terminology or purpose of site plan review. Mr. Lelack said this is to go over the details and operation of a certain use. This would include transportation impacts, building location, wildlife overlay, and a whole series of issues including the physical aspects of the property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 11 of 16 Commissioner DeBone asked if they might have to make some kind of improvements. Ms. Craghead stated that they would, if it is deemed essential. Commissioner DeBone asked if this is a safety issue. Chair Baney said that it has to meet the law at all levels. Once a site plan review is done, they are closer to a decision. This is where the public comments come in. The process involves many inputs from agencies, departments and others. Ms. Craghead said it would be done within 150 days. For at least a couple of events, they might be able to get a specific event permit, if there is enough time to get through that review process. Chair Baney stated the Board wants to be responsive to this and not create a logjam. They want to expedite as the law allows. There are unintended consequences. Ms. Craghead said they are not stopping any events, but the operator may be fined. Mr. Anderson said in terms of Code enforcement, if it is not held in abeyance and there are citations, those citations require an appearance of staff and the applicant before a Circuit Court Judge. If this happens more than once, the Judge will know it. The Judge will have discretion on the amount of the fine or whether to levy one. This puts the onus on the Judge. Chair Baney said she got a petition from people asking this be allowed. She is not sure how to respond. They feel the Board is a barrier to the process. She asked if the Board just allow them to go forward. Ms. Craghead said in her opinion, they cannot legally do so. It is a commercial operation and they have to abide by the law. Mr. Lelack said if there is a path, they would have found it through AOC and other ways. There could be a full church use, but that also requires site plan review and permitting. Ms. Craghead said part of this is not applicable in that fashion. It is EFU property and highly regulated. Chair Baney asked how to hold Code enforcement in abeyance. Commissioner Unger said they did this for 2013 and the Board was flexible then. It is not the fault of the County that they continued to schedule weddings beyond that point. He would not hold back on Code enforcement. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 12 of 16 Commissioner DeBone said no one wants to punish, but they have to be consistent. Chair Baney said they did offer a year for others in the past. Ms. Craghead said one was as a private park. Chair Baney asked if the Board should allow an injunction or apply Code and fines as the Judge deems. Commissioner DeBone said this is the package now. Chair Baney asked about the Hearings Officer or administrative decision and then calling it up by the Board. Commissioner DeBone said they could use the administrative decision process. Commissioner Unger asked what this costs. Mr. Lelack said the Hearings Officer cost is $3,000 is a pass-through for that purpose only, and staff time would be on top of that . Review costs can be around $3,000 as well. If the Board forgoes the CUP fee, that is a waiver of $2,600 and $3,000 and the $2,300 staff costs. The CUP fee is still needed but the other cost would be eliminated for the applicant, but are still real expenses.. Chair Baney said they have already applied for a review and a Hearings Officer’s fee. Commissioner Unger wants staff to be covered for the work they are doing, as it is a burden for them and the County. Commissioner DeBone stated that it is more work on top of a busy workload. It is reasonable for them to be paid for this. DEBONE: Move that they allow for an administrative decision with a Board call up versus the Hearings Officer route. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. __________________________ Chair Baney asked about keeping Code enforcement in abeyance for 2014. They could not keep it in abeyance but not move forward with an injunction. She asked if Code enforcement complains should be filed. Ms. Craghead stated that the County knows the dates of the events and could issue a citation for each one. Mr. Anderson noted that this does not seem fair. Chair Baney asked if a complaint is filed, should they take action. Maybe not every event will occur. She asked if they could choose to not move forward with an injunction, and deal with complaints as they come in. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 13 of 16 John Laherty stated that if the Board is considering not seeking injunctive relief, they should clarify that these are already planned, and this information was provided to CDD for 2014. If Mr. Shepherd adds more events, the prohibition against an injunction would not apply to those. However, all are still subject to Code enforcement and fines if there is a complaint. Chair Baney said that it would be disappointing if law enforcement showed up. Mr. Lelack stated that it depends on whether someone complains. DEBONE: Move for no injunction if the events are already on the list for 2014. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. __________________________ DEBONE: Move they deny the request for a fee waiver of the site plan review, and the $750 is still owed.. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. __________________________ DEBONE: Move to deny a fee waiver request for CUP. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes no. (Split vote.) Chair Baney voted no because she feels there will be a lot of application information that can be obtained from the past application process. Mr. Lelack said they will schedule a time to start th e pre-application review process, and talk about opportunities to obtain event permits for some of the events this summer, as allowed under State law. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 14 of 16 6. Other Items. Erik Kropp said the 9-1-1 Director interviews are scheduled for June 26 with two panels, with a second round on June 27. He asked which Commissioners were participating. Chair Baney said June 27 was best for her. Commissioners Unger and DeBone said they could sit on different panels on June 26. Commissioner DeBone noted that there is a 9-1-1 consolidation meeting at AOC this spring. __________________________ Mr. Anderson asked about the Tumalo porta-potty issues, also referred to as the Tum-a-loo. Susan Ross referred to an aerial photo of the area. Mr. Kropp said this is a County-maintained road, with a dirt portion where people park. Under the current arrangement, an informal association is provided with this and trash containers. However, this incurs liability to the County as an attractive nuisance. There are three options available to the County. One is to transfer liability to another entity through a license agreement, which would then have to purchase a general liability policy. Another would be to insure for it through the County. A third option is to reduce or eliminate the liability by removing imp rovements or fencing off the County’s land. Insurance costs about $1,400 a year. Legal Counsel thinks someone else should purchase the policy, but the Board could choose to provide funds to cover the cost. The Tumalo Community Association is loosely formed, but is a legal entity, a domestic nonprofit established with the State in 2007. Ms. Ross said that there might be some funds through the park fund. Mr. Anderson asked if they really want to start something that would continue indefinitely. Commissioner DeBone said he can’t believe they don’t want to cooperate with the local businesses there. Chair Baney said the Association could be asked if they are interested. Commissioner Unger noted that they pay the cost of renting the facilities, but need one for ADA purposes. Ms. Ross said this is a known issue and there will be liability no matter what. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2014 Page 15 of 16 Commissioner Unger added that people will go there because access to other river areas is not easy. The community is trying to figure out what it wants. Some people want it to be a subdivision or bedroom community and not a town. Businesses want more acknowledgment and development. Commissioner DeBone said that it is in the Bend MPO, but they might not know this. Mr. Kropp said that if they require license agreement, this requires insurance. He asked if the Board wants to help them apply for Parks funds or a discretionary grant. Commissioner Unger stated that a grant would be best until something else that makes sense comes up. They could apply for the grant each year. Mr. Kropp added it would be with the Road Department since it involves a right-of-way. The Board’s policy has always been to keep public lands open. Mr. Anderson said that some of the Dog Board of Commissioners members are not available for the next hearing, and more alternate members are needed. UNGER: Move that David Givans and Erik Kropp be appointed as alternates to the Dog Board of Commissioners, through June 30, 2016. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. __________________________ Mr. Anderson said that the City of Bend will be using the County’s conference rooms for some of their meetings. They will contract direct with the County’s A/V people to handle recording if desired. __________________________ The Board went into Executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations The Board did not convene Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. DATED this /10 Day of ~ 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tam ~::J Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 14,2014 Page 16 of 16 ______________________________________ PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. ______________________________________ Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted 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. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation poss ible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014 ___________________________ 1. Discussion of School-based Health Center at Bend Senior High – Jane Smilie 2. Approval of Grant Application for Emergency Management Program – Sgt. Garibay, Sheriff’s Office 3. Continued Discussion regarding Lobbyist Services – Judith Ure 4. St. Vincent de Paul (La Pine) Request for Loan Forgiveness – Judith Ure 5. Discussion of Request for Fee Waiver (Shepherd) – Nick Lelack 6. Other Items  Executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations – Susan Ross  Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation I U'> (~ ~ ~ ~ E6 ~ ('V ~ ~ --~I ~ r:-I ~ .~ r;1I~~~ ~ ~~ ::: cl 1 0..,..0 I \9 CVJ b) .;P -91 I \..... ~ ~ I 1 ) ~ ~ C f' I I ~ ?:I -; 1f ~ ~ 124" I I I 1 V) 'I 1 I I I-j--l----j._+---+--!---II---~-+I-I-t--I~I-t---+---'--I II I -0 1 ?;-~ 0 I r8tj ~I ~ I ~ I '/ ~ I ~ I I I 0-1 0 ! I I I ~I ~I '.1 o I I (l) I V\ ~ c o 4­o ~ ~ Ctl , 0.. Grant for Bend High School Based Health Center Deschutes County Health Services is seeking permission from Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to pursue an implementation grant from the School Based Health Center (SBHC) State Program Office to open a SBHC at Bend High School in spring of 2015. Goals of SBHCs include decreasing absenteeism, returning students to class with fewer missed school periods, increasing access to primary care services and providing health education programming for the entire school population. • October 2013 -We received a $30,000 grant to support planning of another SBHC in Bend-La Pine Schools. This will be our 6th one. • January 2014 - A community planning committee was convened that included representatives from health services, the school district, health care facilities and parent groups. The group was convened to conduct a needs assessment and select a location that would best meet our community's needs. • February 2014 -The planning committee selected Bend High School. • March 2014 -Potential responsibilities of the three principal partners were discussed -Deschutes County Health Services, Bend-LaPine School District and Mosaic Medical. If we are approved to move forward with an application: o The Health Department would manage the grant, provide a part-time Public Health Nurse and assure the clinic maintains certification as a SBHC. The nurse would assist the clinic, serve as a liaison with faculty and students, and provide health education programming. o Mosaic Medical Board of Directors has agreed to be the medical sponsor of the clinic. Megan -.Haase and Elaine Knobbs represented Mosaic Medical in these discussions. o Bend-La Pine School District agreed they would provide clinic space, including covering the expenses to convert a space, with the provision that no adults be seen in the school clinic. Brad Henry, COO of the school district represented the district in these discussions. o All parties agreed that these would be appropriate roles moving forward if this request is approved. • The initial grant award for the implementation grant would be $60,000 in the first year and $53,000 in subsequent years. This would support the part-time public health nurse salary and benefits, as well as basic operating costs incurred by the county. We do not expect that the county would need to provide general fund support for the project. I To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Sgt. Nathan Garibay Date: May 5, 2014 Subject: Proposed Grant Application for the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Commissioner/County Administrator Approval: Date: The Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office is requesting the Board of Commissioners’ approval to submit a grant application on behalf of the County. A summary of the grant opportunity follows. Program: Deschutes County Emergency Management Program The Sheriff’s Office will utilize the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) to fund the county’s emergency management program. The Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office has been allocated $88,876.00 in funds pursuant to a successful grant application to the Oregon Military Department, Office of Emergency Management. The funds will be used to pay half of the salary for the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Services Manager and related program. The Sheriff’s Office will pay $88,876.00 in matching funds. The Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Services Manager is responsible for all planning, coordination and oversight for the Emergency Services functions mandated to the Sheriff’s Office by Oregon Revised Statute and Deschutes Count y Code. An Emergency Services Manager must address four specific areas: Exercises; Plans; Training; and Public Education. Some of the activities required of the Emergency Services Manager include either creating or updating the county-wide Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the Threats and Hazards Identification and Risk Assessment, and a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Additionally, the Emergency Services Manager must participate in certain training requirements, such as participating in an annual EMPG workshop and in a state level multi-year training and exercise plan workshop. Funding Agency: Oregon Office of Emergency Management, Emergency Management Performance Program. On May 1, 2014, OEM issued a state-wide notice that the application period is open until June 13th and Deschutes County has been allocated $88,876.00. Due Date: Application: June 13, 2014 Amount: $88,876.00 Matching Funds: $88,876.00 Duration: July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 Background: If the County is awarded the funds, OEM will issue a formal grant document which will be presented to the Board/County Administrator for signature. Reporting: Sgt. Garibay, the Deschutes County Emergency Manager, will be responsible for submitting quarterly reports to the Office of Emergency Management. Please contact Sgt. Garibay at 541-617-3303 if you have questions concerning this request. -- Comparison of Legislative Programs *Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Marion, and Lane only counties in state with dedicated legislative and/or lobbyist staff. Other organizations with contract lobbyists (as listed on state registration list): City of Beaverton: Baldwin Consulting City of Eugene: Elizabeth Howe Public Affairs City of Gresham: Ronald Papsdorf(City of Gresham staff) City of Klamath Falls: Public Affairs Counsel City of Medford: ZRGroup City of Salem: CFM Strategic Communications --~'".--""""-""'''''~ ,¥AU t},)Wii?I¥M Pt, 'hi !'t9'4ii ' ,WES,'; ;,w, JIlMI,_ ;¥4¥4@iliJiSU4R' $Q «$$ i !ill ~II,~ i» £ 4; "h$I 41AA J!$$$ • J, ($~ .f,),LQ4z,bl¥R~i.Qi ;:;4N!SWM?~'" ,--~ ~-- Orf;!anization Legislative Staff* ~-~ AOCILOC State Lobbyist Federal Lobbyist Notes Benton County No Yes: Primary state legislative support. No No Chief Operating Officer and Board members registered as lobbyists with state. . Clackamas County Yes: 3 government relations and public affairs staff year round. Yes: Statewide issues only. No Yes: Ball Janik n-call primarily for forest management and transportation issues. Douglas County --­--­--­--­No response. i Jackson County --­--­--­--­No response. Lane County Yes: I staff lobbyist year round .. Yes: Statewide issues only. No Yes Coordinates closely with Eugene, Springfield, Parks & Rec,Schooland Transit Districts, and COG. I Linn County No Yes: Statewide issues only. Yes: Public Affairs Counsel year round. No Polk County No Yes: Primary state legislative support. No. Yes: Project specific. Washington County ~~~-~ Yes: 2 staff, 1 dedicated to state issues, year round. Yes: Statewide issues only. Yes: Pac West for select issues only. Yes: Von Scoyuk year round. Also contracts with Western Advocates for regional issus. City of Bend ~~~ ~-~ --­--­Yes: Eric Kancler year round. --­ 1 1 j i .~ I ! 1 I j I I I i PROMISSORY NOTE DATE: December 7,2011 PROMISOR: St. Vincent de Paul -La Pine PO Box 1008 La Pine, Oregon 97739 PROMISEE: Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, Oregon 97701 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Promisor promises to pay to Promisee, at Promisee's order, the principal sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) at an interest rate of one percent per annum upon release of the funds. Payment of principal and interest shall be due by June 30, 2014. There is no penalty for prepayment. In the event the Promisor sells any portion of the land parcel located on Huntington Road, the entire outstanding loan balance will be required. Borrower: St. Vincent de Paul -La Pine Principal: $5,000.00 Interest rate: 1% per annum Term: 30 months Maturity Date: June 30, 2014 Payment check to: Deschutes County Finance Department Deschutes Services Building 1300 N.W. Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 1. Acceleration. If Promisor abandons, terminates or ceases to pursue dividing Property located at the above address, Promisee may exercise its option to accelerate payment of this Note upon such occurrence or default by Promisor regardless of any prior forbearance. 2. Disputes. With respect to any dispute relating to this agreement, or in the event that a suit, action, arbitration, or other proceeding of any nature whatsoever, including, without limitation, any proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and involving issues peculiar to federal bankruptcy law, or any action seeking a declaration of rights. is instituted to interpret or enforce this agreement or any provision of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party its reasonable attorneys' fees and all other fees, costs, and expenses actually incurred and reasonably necessary in connection therewith, as determined by the judge or arbitrator at trial or other proceeding, or on any appeal or review. in addition to all other amounts provided by law. ~ir~ LEGAL COllNSEL La Pine Community Clinic, LLC 12-11-08 DC -20 11 -7 0 4 3. Waivers. Presentment, notice of dishonor, and protest are hereby waived by all makers, sureties, guarantors, and endorsers hereof. This note shall be the joint and several obligation of all makers, sureties, guarantors and endorsers, and shall be binding upon them and their successors and assigns. 4. Notices. Any notice to Promisor provided for in this Note shall be given by mailing such notice by certified mail addressed to Promisor at the property address stated, or to such other address as Promisor may designate by notice to Promisee. Any notice to Promisee shall be given by mailing such notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Promisee at the address stated in the first paragraph of this Note, or at such other address as may have been designated by notice to Promisor. 5. Acknowledgement of Principal. Promisor acknowledges that Block Grant funds are the source of the Principal set forth above and will be disbursed by the Promisee for the benefit of the Project and Promisor in accordance with the terms of the Block Grant. Undsr Oregon Law (Chapter 9.67 OR laws 1989), most agreements, promises, and commitments made by us after October 3, 1989 concerning loans and other credit extensions which are not for personal, family, or household purposes or secured solely by the Borrower's residence, must be in writing, sxpress considsration, and be signed by us to be enforceable. PROMISOR: ST. VINCENT DE PAUL-LA PINE (~Kfi-~ :-rQz. t\SCJ.~<i P- By 7 -..)6 t\fJ e. {Y\oO It.­ I Its DATE: _--'-f1/_3~J.........a.:;....;..o__ ........ · 0+-'12-< __ f I I i La Pine Community Clinic. LLC 12-11..Q8 ------------------------------------------------------ County Clerk's Office Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk 1300 I\JW Wa II St, Suite 202, Bend, OR 97701-1 960 Fax (541) 383-4424 Recording (541) 388-6549 Elections (541) 388-6547 www.co.deschutes.or.us Request for Retention of an Original County Document by County Clerk (Deschutes County Policy #GA-18) (Use only one request per original document) To: Deschutes County Clerk Depa rtment: BOCC Department Reference No(s).: DC-2011-704 The Clerk's Office is directed to securely retain the document identified below until a release is requested pursuant to Deschutes County Policy #GA-18. Promissory Note $5,000 Dated 12-7-11 St. Vincent de Paul -LaPine DC-2011-704 Relevant Dates(s) Document Numbers/Codes Maturity Date: 6-30-2014 Upon receipt of original document Clerk's Office is requested to notify the following: IX Administration IX Legal Counsel IX Finance I Property Management I Community Development IX Connie Thomas IX Connie Scorza IX Cheryl Circle r­ Clerk's Initials Date Received Clerk ID 1....___________ -' DESCHUTES COUNTY DOCUMENT SUMMARY (NOTE: This fonn Is required to be submitted with ALL contracts and other agreements, regardless of whether the document is to be on a Soard agenda or can be signed by the County Administrator or Department Director. if the document is to be on a Board agenda, the Agenda Request Fonn is also required. If this fonn is not included with the document. the document will be returned to the Department Please submit documents to the Board Secretary for tracking purposes, and not directly to Legal Counsel, the County Administrator or the Commissioners. In addition to submitting this fonn with your documents, please submit this form electronically to the Board Secretary.) Please complete all sections above the Official Review line. Date: [12-7-20111 Department: @\dministrative Servicesl Contractor/Supplier/Consultant Name: 1St. Vincent de Paul -La Pine! Contractor Contact: IGlenn Kotar~ Contractor Phone #: ~80-77521 Type of Document: ILoan to cover expenses associated with division of parcel of landl Goods and/or Services: Loan for $5,000 at 1 % interest for u June 30,2014 or until arcel of land is sold. St. Vincent de Paul -La Pine re Agreement Starting Date: 11217120111 Ending Date: 6/30/20141 Annual Value or Total Payment: 1$5,OOq D Insurance Certificate Recei,ed (CieCk box) Insurance Expiration Date: Check all that apply: D RFP, Solicitation or Bid Process D Informal quotes «$150K) ~ Exempt from RFP, Solicitation or Bid Process (specify -see DCC §2.37) Funding Source: (Included in current budget? ~ Yes D No If No, has budget amendment been submitted? DYes D No Is this a Grant Agreement providing revenue to the County? D Yes ~ No Special conditions attached to this grant: 0 12n12011 Deadlines for reporting to the grantor: '------' If a new FTE will be hired with grant funds, confirm that Personnel has been notified that it is a grant-funded position so that this will be noted in the offer letter: 0 Yes 0 No Contact information for the person responsible for grant compliance: Name: Phone #: [322-7697) Departmental Contact and Title: Dave Inbod Assistant to the Count I V\dministrato~ Phone #: 1322-7697 Department Director Approval: __...:;~~__....;.\~~~__ Signature \. Date I Distribution of Document: Who gets the original document and/or copies after it has been signed? Include complete information jf the document is to be mailed. Official Review: County Signature Required (check one): 0 BOCC ~ Department Director (if <$25K) o Administrator (if >$25K but l$~5~~if >$150K, BOCC Order No. legal Review Date* {lJ:u;J/ f-'-l.! '"41 Document Number DC - 2 0 11-7 0 4 121712011 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director DATE: May 14, 2014 RE: John Shepherd Requests for a Fee Waiver Request, Code Enforcement Held in Abeyance for 2014, and Board Review of Land Use Applications Summary The purpose of this work session is to consider three requests from John Shepherd: 1. A Fee Waiver in the amount of $8,455 for land use applications and a Hearings Officer public hearing on his property at 71120 Holmes Road, Sisters, OR: a. Private Park Conditional Use Permit (CUP): $2,320; b. Site Plan Review: $3,135; and, c. Hearings Officer deposit: $3,000 (note: this amount may be higher depending on actual costs). 2. Deschutes County to hold code enforcement in abeyance for Mr. Shepherd's scheduled commercial weddings and receptions in 2014. 3. Board of County Commission (BOCC) direct review of Mr. Shepherd's land use applications. Discussion Each of Mr. Shepherd's requests is briefly discussed below. Fee Waiver Mr. Shepherd provides two reasons for the BOCC to waive his land use fees: 1. "Other remedies have been exhausted" Mr. Shepherd states that he acted on COD's advice in his prior application submittal and process, and has already paid COD fees. Last year, staff advised Mr. Shepherd that this application would be legally complex, controversial, and largely untested under state law. However, he only partially followed staff's recommendation in making his application, and then his modification represented a significant departure and did not resemble staff's recommended approach. Quality Services Performed with Pride Mr. Shepherd did not appeal the County Hearings Officer denial of his application. Therefore, he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Mr. Shepherd paid the application fee and Hearings Officer deposit for the Hearings Officer services for his prior applications for a private park conditional use permit and modification of application. A $750 unpaid balance remains for the Hearings Officer services. Mr. Shepherd was made aware of that balance and, to date, has not paid it. COO paid that balance. Mr. Shepherd did not apply for nor pay a fee for a Site Plan Review. Finally, Mr. Shepherd states that part of his balance from his prior CUP and modification applications included fines. COD has not issued any citations or fines for Mr. Shepherd. The basis for this claim is unknown. 2. "Public Benefit". Mr. Shepherd and his Legal Counsel Dave Hunnicut state that the public benefit is served because his application will set a statewide precedent and clarify a legal issue (whether weddings and receptions can be approved under the private park provisions in state law). Mr. Shepherd also states that the public benefit is served by the economic activity generated by the wedding events. Conditional use permits are fact intensive based on the specific circumstances on individual properties. Mr. Shepherd's property is unique because it is in a Wildlife Area Combining Zone. In addition, other counties have approved wedding venues as private parks. Thus, staff is uncertain if or how this application will set a statewide precedent. Hold Code Enforcement in Abeyance for 2014 Mr. Shepherd has requested the BOCC "extend the clemency for any scheduled wedding events this summer for Shepherdsfield." His submittals detail the reasons for his request. Staff has submitted correspondence between COD and Mr. Shepherd from 2013 regarding the County's agreement to hold code enforcement in abeyance for 2013. Mr. Shepherd's fourth point in his letter states: "The 'evidence' that staff has of my upcoming weddings was given to staff a year ago at their request. They asked to see 'all of the contracts' I had signed with the offered hope of clemency for those contracts. It doesn't seem fair then to turn around and punish me on the basis of evidence that they requested and received under an offer of clemency. " COD did not request evidence of booking dates for weddings in 2014. Mr. Shepherd provided those contracts on his own accord with his contracts for 17 weddings in summer 2013. The attached letter from COD specifically states: "Submit evidence (such as a signed wedding contract) of the booking dates for weddings on your property through summer 2013 no later than Thursday, July 18,2013 at 5:00 p.m." [emphasis added] The attached July 8, 2013 COD letter states that the County did not agree to hold code enforcement in abeyance beyond September 2013. Mr. Shepherd also agreed in writing, though he specifically stated he was "given no choice," to the County's terms in exchange for holding code enforcement in abeyance in 2013. -2­ BOCC Direct Review of Land Use Applications Mr. Shepherd requests that his land use applications be heard directly by the SOCC for several reasons, including that the first evidentiary public hearing has already been held. Mr. Shepherd did not appeal Hearings Officer Karen Green's decision on his application. Therefore, a new application is required. I Deschutes County Code 22.24.020 requires the firstreviewing body be either staff or the Hearings Officer. The SOCC has the discretion to call up for review an administrative (staff) or Hearings Officer decision, but does not have the ability to be the initial reviewing body under County Code. I 1 eocc Decisions I Staff seeks SOCC decisions regarding: 1. Fee Waiver Options: I a. Approve the full fee waiver in the amount of approximately $8,455 and find that the action is in the public benefit, per the fee waiver policy. b. Approve the full fee waiver above less the remaining balance of $750 from the prior application. c. Approve a partial fee waiver, such as one or more of the following fees: i. Private Park Conditional Use Permit (CUP): $2,320; ii. Site Plan Review: $3,135; and, iii. Hearings Officer deposit: $3,000. d. Approve a partial fee waiver less the remaining balance of $750 from the prior application. e. Deny the fee waiver request. 2. Hold Code Enforcement in Abeyance in 2014 Options: a. Hold code enforcement in abeyance for wedding and reception events scheduled for 2014. b. Do not hold code enforcement in abeyance for wedding and reception events scheduled in 2014. This option will result in the issuance of citations to Circuit Court for the imposition of monetary penalties but not seek injunctive relief if wedding and reception events are held. Attachments 1. John Shepherd Submittals (4 documents) 2. MA-13-3, CU-13-13 3. 2013 Correspondence between COD and Mr. Shepherd regarding Code Enforcement (2 documents) -3­ Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety DM.ion Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend. Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ July 8,2013 Mr. John Shepherd 71120 Holmes Rd Sisters, OR 97759 RE: Wedding Event Code Enforcement Dear Mr. Shepherd: I 1 The purpose of this letter is to follow up on our telephone conversation on Friday, June 21, 2013 regarding the code enforcement case pertaining to unpermitted commercial weddings at your property on Holmes Road, and your pending Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to establish a private park. I On January 30, 2013, you stated to the Board of Commissioners at their work session that 17 weddings are scheduled on your property this summer. During our telephone conversation on June 21, 2013 you confirmed that you have commercial weddings scheduled this summer, , among other events. I explained the County may be willing to hold code enforcement in abeyance this summer for weddings already booked since your CUP application is pending before a County Hearings Officer, but no additional weddings for a fee should be scheduled or held on your property beyond September 2013 without all applicable County permits. I am writing to confirm that weddings and events booked prior to our telephone conversation on June 21.2013 for summer 2013 will not be subject to code enforcement action provided that you: 1. Submit evidence (such as a signed wedding contract) of the booking dates for weddings on your property through summer 2013 no later than Thursday, July 18, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. 2. All commercial weddings and events shall comply with all applicable public health (e.g., food service, water, sanitation) regulations, the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), and the County's Noise Ordinance (Deschutes County Code 8.08). 3. Resolve the pending building code violation case on your property immediately. Specifically. the non-permitted gazebo requires permits (B72148 and E112067), which are in pending status. These permits must be fully activated no later than Thursday, July 18,2013. Work and installations must be inspected and pass final inspection prior to public occupancy and no later than Monday, July 29,2013 at 5:00 p.m. Quality Services Performed with Pride I 4. Agree in writing or via email that you will conduct!!.Q additional unpermitted weddings or commercial events for a fee, beyond those already booked as of June 21, 2013 for summer 2013. This means that no unpermitted weddings or commercial events will occur on your priority that are not identified and documented in writing for 2013 and none for 2014 and beyond. Please be advised that while we will not actively look for unpermitted wedding events held this summer and beyond, we will respond to any new complaints we receive about weddings/events that are not listed in your forthcoming letter and documentation. Please submit the documentation to my attention at the address listed above. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please let me know if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Nick Lelack Director Cc: Tom Anderson, County Administrator Code Enforcement staff Board of County Commissioners ShephertlsFieltl LLC John Shepherd 71120 Holmes Road Sisters OR 97759 (541) 548-9905 shepherdsfield@gmail.com Shepherdsfield.biz 7116113 Dear Nick, Please find attached copies of all the upcoming wedding contracts that have been engaged. To respect the privacy of the brides, I have redacted their names. I'm glad that Deschutes County has agreed to allow these weddings to go forward. As you can imagine, a tremendous amount of planning and financial and emotional investment goes into a wedding. Many weddings are planned two years in advance, as you will see from these conrracts which include some dates in 2014. For me to breach any ofthese con1racts would be devastating to the brides and could result in serious lawsuits against me. I signed many of these contracts long ago when I was confident that the Commercial Event Venue Ordinance, ordered by the Deschutes County Commissioners, would certainly provide a legal means for me to provide a venue for these brides. When that avenue failed, I continued to contract the venue under the hope that private park CUP would provide a legal means. I remain very confident in that hope. However, as requested, I have since begun telling brides that I cannot contract additional future dates until this matter is resolved. I am now telling inquiring brides that I can pencil their name on a date but that I will not contract that date until I receive permission from Deschutes County. However, as a pastor and minister of 30+ years, who performed my first wedding over 30 years ago, I chafe under this restriction. It is hard not to view an order prohibiting a pastor from performing weddings on his church grounds as an abridgement of my right to exercise my religious freedom. Nevertheless, given no choice, I agree to your terms. Like you, I hope this resolves quickly. I do appreciate your cooperation in this matter over the years. Please encourage anyone interested that each wedding, by my calculations, creates about $70,000 in economic activity for Deschutes County, including a lot of outside money, for air flights, car rentals, hotel rentals, caterers, florists, equipment rentals, formal wear, D.J.s, etc. Thus benefiting and serving the citizens of Deschutes County. ~e~elY,~ Jo~'l;pherd I am hereby applying for a fee waiver for my CUP application for a private park. The fee waiver application states: The Board of county Commissioners may waive fees in any other case where the public benefit is served and other remedies have been exhausted. I believe I qualify for a waiver under the circumstances stated above for the following reasons: 1. Other remedies have been exhausted. a. I have been pursuing the legal options for a wedding venue for four years. b. After the Commission allowed wedding venues under agritourism, I submitted an application only to be told by COD staff that it would be "virtually impossible" to qualify on my property, due to the lack of water rights for irrigation on my property. c. Following COD's advice, I submitted a CUP application for a private park, paying the full amount. When COD staff issued a staff report indicating that wedding events were not recreational, and thus should not, in and of themselves, qualify for a private park, I spent another $880 to submit a revised CUP application with an expanded park to address that concern. d. Furthermore, COD staff told me that I could postpone the expensive Site Plan Review until a CUP decision was reached. Ultimately, the Hearings Officer rejected my application largely because of issues that would have been resolved in Site Plan Review. e. Finally, staff's "threshold" objection that a wedding event is not recreational and thus not suitable to a private park was overturned by the HO who agreed with us that wedding events can be recreational and suitable for a private park. f. Last year, I paid Deschutes County $8,500 for permits, fines and fees, just related to this application. 2. The public benefit is served. a. The public benefit is served in that this CUP application will set legal precedent and thus further clarify a legal issue that has been simmering in Deschutes County for years. A decision by the County Commission will provide guidance to all Deschutes County residents. b. Furthermore, if my application (and others following mine) is successful, the public is served because countless brides will have an affordable and private venue in which they may marry. c. The citizens of Deschutes County will benefit by the economic activity generated by 18 weddings per year, many of them destination weddings. Calculating the average amount spent on each wedding ($26,000) and the amount spent by each visitor to Deschutes County, 'estimate that my venue will generate $1.25 million in local economic activity. Thereby, having paid this fee once already, I respectfully request a waiver of the CUP application fee. John Shepherd 71120 Holmes Road Sisters OR 97759 In support of John Shepherd's fee waiver request, I would point out that resolution of the main issue in this case has statewide implications and will likely be appealed by the losing party to LUBA. It would be a benefit to all Deschutes County residents with an interest in this issue (from whatever perspective) to have this issue resolved, so that property owners and environmental groups will know whether or not weddings will be allowed as an activity in a "private park," and if so, under what limitations that activity may occur. Mr. Shepherd has already paid the county a substantial fee, the primary issue has already been litigated to the County Hearings Officer, and she has already rendered a decision on the primary issue. In Mr. Shepherd's previous application, there did not seem to be significant disputes over the facts, and there were only three parties involved, as I recall. The Hearings Officers decision was thorough, and laid out a roadmap for a successful private park application. Whether the Board agrees with that decision or not is certainly unknown, but repeating the same steps to the Hearings Officer on a similar application which will likely involve the same parties raising the same issues to substantially similar facts seems like a waste of everyone's time and resources, including County staff, the applicant, and the opponents. Moving the case directly to the Board for resolution of an issue that will have great significance to the County and possibly statewide is prudent, and I hope that the Board will consider doing so. Dave Hunnicutt President Oregonians (n Action (503) 620-0258 dave@oia.org Request for Commissioners to extend clemency for wedding events Please extend the clemency for any scheduled wedding events this summer for Shepherdsfield. I know you have to follow the law evenly, but I believe my situation is unique and deserves unique treatment, for the following reasons. I 1 1. By the end of May, I will have a 2nd CUP application in place. This is an ongoing process and, as such, should merit tolerance until it can play out. In the meantime, I have cancelled all my advertising and turned down any future contracts. 2. For four years, I have been attempting to pioneer a new and better way to use non-farmable EFU land, most recently by creating a private park. The question of whether wedding events fall within the scope of a "private park" is untested in Oregon law, meaning I am assuming the role of the test case on this issue. I am asking for a little leniency while I continue to process this case through the local and possibly state legal process. 3. My first application won on the chief issue that wedding events are recreational and thus suited to a private park. It was rejected, however, for lacking evidence on several of the siting criteria, criteria that would normally be submitted in the site plan review process which COD staff indicated I did not have to satisfy as part of my CUP application. 4. The "evidence" that staff has of my upcoming weddings was given to staff a year ago at their request. They asked to see "all of the contracts" I had signed with the offered hope of clemency for those contracts. It doesn't seem fair then to turn around and punish me on the basis of evidence that they requested and received under an offer of clemency. 5. To my knowledge, the City of Bend has repeatedly failed to meet their Federal deadlines for ADA compliance and has failed to meet their deadlines for Urban Growth Boundary compliance. In both cases, they requested and received extensions. If the city, with its vast supply of planners, attorneys and resources, is granted clemency, should not a private citizen be treated with the same courtesy? 6. These weddings were scheduled over a year or two ago. I cannot cancel or reschedule them without creating enormous hardship for the brides and their families and guests. There is no alternative. 7. I still maintain that I have a religious freedom right, as a licensed minister of 35 years who has pastored a registered church on my grounds for four years, to hold and perform weddings. "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." As a last resort, I will take this to a judge to resolve this question. This will create an unnecessary mess and a distraction for both me and the county. Request for Commissioners to hear the CUP Application Directly County has two options for processing a CUP application. One is to have the initial evidentiary hearing before a Hearings Officer appointed by the County. The second allows the Board of Commissioners to bypass the Hearings Officer and to schedule the initial evidentiary hearing before the Board. I am hereby requesting that my CUP be combined with Site Plan Review and heard directly by the Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. Karen Green has already heard our Private Park CUP application for special events. She ruled in our favor on the seminal question of whether a wedding event is a recreational activity suited for a private park. (See addendum quote #1) 2. HO Green ultimately ruled against us on the basis of several technical objections raised by Central Oregon Land Watch. These objections should have been resolved during Site Plan Review but we were advised by COD Staff that Site Plan Review could be completed after the CUP approval. This time, we hope to resolve all extraneous issues with COD Staff and bring a clean application to the Board. 3. HO Green's detailed decision, which sets forth the criteria she felt necessary to resolve the application, provides an easy blueprint for the parties, staff, and the Board to follow during the proceedings. Repeating this step with the HO is redundant, needlessly expensive, and will not lead to a better record before the Board than the record that would be created before the Board if the Board heard the case directly. 4. This application presents a question of first impression for the Board, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the County's land use laws. The issue in this application is one that has troubled staff and Deschutes County residents for quite some time. This application gives the Board t,he opportunity to resolve the issue, which will result in great benefit to COD Staff and Deschutes County residents. Hearing the CUP Application directly will expedite the process for obtaining a decision and allow me to process the application. 5. I have already paid the Hearings Officer fee once and, on a substitute teachers meager income of $11,000 (for 2013) cannot easily afford this fee again. #1 "The threshold question presented by this application is whether the applicant's proposal constitutes a "private park," a term that is not defined in Section 18.04.030./1 Karen Green, page 7 "However, I concur with the applicant that the other types of activities that could occur during wedding receptions and other special events would fall within the definition of "recreation" and therefore would be encompassed in the "private park" use. Karen Green, page 10 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental SoUs Division P.O. Box 6005 117 N.W Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6S75 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ FEE WAIVER POLICY Effective January 4, 2006, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners approved Ordinance Nos. 2006-001, 2006-002 and 2006-003, delegating authority to administer and approve septic permit, building permit. and land use permit fee waiver requests to the Community Development Director and County Administrator (DOC 13.08, 15.04.160 and 22.08.010). The Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County has delegated full authority to the Community Development Department (COD) Director to administer this policy, with the exception of Items #7 and #8. POLICY GUIDELINES: 1. Fee waivers under this policy provide a public benefit. 2. With the adoption of this policy and continuing with each budget. an amount not to exceed $5.000 shall be set aside into a hardship account within the COD budget from any savings of budgeted expenses or excess revenue. 3. When money is available in the hardship account of COD. the COD Director may authorize fee waivers in amounts not to exceed the fee waiver budget each year. 4. The COD Director shall find an applicant meets one of the following criteria in granting fee waivers: A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions. Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached as Exhibit "A." 1. There is an immediate need of the services of the Community Development Department to protect the applicant's or the public's health or safety. 2. Granting the waiver will create a long-term efficiency of a Code Enforcement issue. B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary hardship that could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project. and the fee waiver will benefit the community. (NOTE: Community Service may be required by the COD Director for some or all of the waived fees.) 5. Fee Waiver requests covered above shall be submitted on a form provided by COD. Applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of the above criteria are satisfied. The request will be delivered to the COD Director for review and decision. Quality Services Perfonned with Pride 6. The applicant may appeal the COD Director's decision to the Deschutes County Administrator. The applicant may appeal the Deschutes County Administrator's decision to the Board of County Commissioners. 7. The Board of County Commissioners may issue blanket fee waivers, subject to the above criterion, for classes of hardship such as catastrophic fire. 8. The Board of County Commissioners may waive fees in any other case where the public benefit is served and other remedies have been exhausted. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP Some property owners or other responsible persons who lack the financial ability to obtain permits and approvals to pay fees established by the County for Community Development Services may receive relief. The procedure for establishing financial hardships is set forth below: Procedure: In cases where the applicant appears to have insufficient resources to pay fees, the applicant may apply to qualify for financial or other assistance within available resources and under the following procedures. 1. Criteria for Indigency To qualify for assistance under this section, the applicant or other responsible person must demonstrate a substantial financial hardship that makes paying the required fees impractical. 2. Fee ReductionlWaiver An applicant may apply for a reduction or waiver of COD development fees for permits. The decision to reduce or waive development fees will be made by the COD Director, considering the following factors: A. The degree of the applicant's indigency; B. The cost of the development permit(s) or approval(s) required; C. Funds available for fee reductions/waivers in COD's budget or in any other available funds; and D. Other assistance available in the community. 3. Community Service in Lieu of Fees Upon a finding of indigency, the COD Director may order community service at the rate of $10.00 per hour in lieu of some or all waived fees. A period of time shall be established in which the community service shall be completed. Fee Waiver Policy and Form 1/2006, Rev. 1/2012 Page 2 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE AND REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVER This information is submitted in confidence and is not subject to public disclosure (ORS 192.502(2). APPLICANT'S NAME: _________________ I, the undersigned, am requesting a waiver of Deschutes County Fees for Community Development Services because I cannot pay at this time without causing substantial hardship to myself and/or my dependent family. The following information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I ask the COD Director to use the information to decide whether I may receive a fee waiver at public expense. I understand I may be required to document or verify this information. 1. PERSONAL Name (print): ______________________ Phone: L-) _________ Residence Address: _________________ City/State/Zip: _________ Mailing Address (if different): ______________ City/State/Zip: ________ Social Security No. _________Date of Birth: --:-:-=--::7""--­[ 1 Male [ ] Female Mo/Day/Year Marital Status: [ ] Married [ ] Single [ ] Divorced [ ] Separated [ ]Widowed []Other: ______ Complete the following information for everyone living in your household: Name Relationship Age Monthly Income **Staff Use Only** Description of fees to be waived: ________________ Est. Amount: $______ Fee Waiver Approved: [ ] Yes [ ] No --'--'-­Director, Community Development Dept. DateComments: ________________________________ Quality Services Performed with Pride 2. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME Present Employer ____________ How Long Occupation __________ Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: L-)____ Hourly wage $_____Average Hrs.lWeek: ______ Net (aftertax) monthly income: _____ If unemployed, how long since you were employed: ______ Previous Employer: __________ How Long: Occupation: _______ Address ____________________ Phone ( ___ )____________ Spouse's Employer: ___________ How Long: Occupation: _______ Address ___________________ Phone ( ___ )_______________ Hourly Wage $_____Average Hrs.lWeek: ________ Net (after tax) monthly income: ______ If unemployed, how long since spouse was employed: _________ Other income for you and spouse, dependents or household members (example: Social Security, unemployment, retirement, public assistance, child support, worker's compensation, disability, etc.) Source of Income (Describe) Amount How Long Received How Often Received Other household members who help pay for your living expenses: Name Amount Payment for What Describe 3. PROPERTY AND ASSETS OWNED BY YOU, SPOUSE AND DEPENDENTS Cash Available: _______________ Savings Acc't. No: ________ Balance: $_____ Bank/Branch Office: __________ Checking Acc't. No: _________ Balance: $_____ Bank/Branch Office: ________ Other Acc't. No: _________ Balance: $_____ Bank/Branch Office: _______ Real Estate: Address, City Value Amount Owed Equity Payments Made Fee Waiver Policy and Form 1/2006, Rev. 1/2012 Page 4 Credit Card Name/Bank Account Number Expiration Date Motor Vehicle MakelYear Value Amount Owed Equity Payments Made Are any of these motor vehicles used for work (other than driving to and from work)? All other property or assets (example: furniture, boats, guns, jewelry, tools, etc.): Description Value Description [ 1Yes [ 1No Value Money owed to you or spouse by others (example, tax refund, trust, judgment, etc.): Name of Debtor Amount Owed Date Payment Expected 4. MONTHLY EXPENSES List all expenses that are paid monthly by you, individually, or by you, jointly with spouse: Rent/Mortgage: $,______ Utilities: $________ Credit Card: $ _______ Car: $_________ Insurance: $._______ Medical: $_________ Child Support $ ______ Court Order: $______ Other: [1 I am willing to perform Community Service to offset the public cost of my request. [1 I unable to perform Community Service for the following reasons: I certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant Signature Date Fee Waiver Policy and Form 1/2006, Rev. 1/2012 Page 5 Community Development Department Planning DIvision Building Safety DIvision Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ RELEASE TO OBTAIN INFORMA TION FOR VERIFICATION (CONFIDENTIAL) APPLICANT'S NAME: ___________________________ I understand that the County may verify my employment and financial situation to determine my eligibility for a fee waiver. I understand that some of the information necessary for this verification is contained in records that are protected under federal and state laws. I have therefore signed this release which allows public and private organizations and individuals to provide the County or its designee with requested information. I understand that organizations and individuals which may be contacted include but are not limited to: • Social Security Administration • State Department of Revenue • Mortgage Holder • Department of Motor Vehicles • Employment Division(s) • Utility Companies • Worker's Compensation Disability Provider • Adult and Family Services Division • Landlords • Private Disability Insurance Provider • Private Life Insurance Provider • Past Employers • Release Assistance Office • Credit Card Holders • Credit Bureaus • Schools and Colleges • Banks, Savings & Loans, Credit Unions (requesting savings, stocks, bonds, checking, loan and credit information including copies of applications) • Other:.________ By signing this release, I specifically authorize the County or its designee to directly contact my current employer by telephone or in writing, and to release and utilize my address as needed by the Board of County Commissioners or its designee. Applicant Signature Date Quality Services Performed with Pride Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ FEE WAIVER REQUEST FORM Name of Individual/Organization: ___________________________ Address:_______________ City/State/Zip: _____ Phone: ~)___ Type of Permit and Fees: [] Building $._____________ [ ] Planning $___________ [] Subsurface Sewage $_________ [ ] Other: $___________ Total amount of fee(s) requested to be waived: $_________________ The applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of the criteria below are satisfied. The request will be reviewed by the Community Development Director and a response will be provided within ten (10) business days. Criteria that must be met to qualify for a Fee Waiver: A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions. Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached (refer to Affidavit of Indigence and Request for Fee Waiver form). 1. There is an immediate need of the Community Development Department's services to protect the applicant's or public's health or safety. 2. Granting the fee waiver will create a long-term efficiency for a Code Enforcement issue. B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary hardship which could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project; and the fee waiver will benefit the community. (NOTE: The Community Development Director may require performance of community services for some or all of the waived fees.) Quality Services Performed with Pride Go ,ol e earth feetr================-_400" rreters;-' 100