Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-01 Work Session Minutes 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 MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2010 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Peter Russell of Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; media representatives Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and Dave Adams of KBND Radio; and two other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Consideration of Approval of Amendments to Promissory Notes and an Option Advance Note with the Humane Society of Redmond. Dave Kanner gave a brief overview of the item. He said they got in surrendered horses of some value, and have been able to sell them. They also got a $25,000 challenge grant and some funds from an estate. He feels that their financial situation has improved and they will address their policies regarding accepting cats in the near future. UNGER: Move approval of Document Nos. 2010-698 and 2010-699. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 2. Discussion of Fee Waiver Request (Deschutes Junction Declaratory Ruling). Tom Anderson said he has the authority to waive some fees, but in some instances, this must come before the Board. One requirement is that the waiver must benefit the community. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010 Page 2 of 6 Pages Mr. Anderson stated that the owner of the subject property, Mr. Fagen, feels a waiver should be considered in a case involving property he owns at Deschutes Junction so that there is some clarification. The fee waiver form submitted by Mr. Fagen is an older version. Paul Dewey commented on the substance of that submission. Mr. Anderson feels consideration of the request today should be conducted under the new version. Peter Russell said that part of the definition of a rural service center would be that there is more than one residential structure. It does not fit the criteria in this case. The permanent residential status of the building needs to be determined. There are three options: waive the $1,230 fee; waive a portion of the fee; or don’t waive the fee at all. Commissioner Luke stated that because it is in a landscape management zone, the pink color of the building is not in compliance. Mr. Anderson said this is being addressed. Commissioner Unger said that he believes there is just one building there. Mr. Russell stated there is a brick building west of this one that has been used as a dwelling. At question is the permanent residential status of the big, pink building. This has been in question since 2002 when the State criteria for an unincorporated commercial area was found not to fit Administrative Rule. Commissioner Luke said that an arrangement was made at that time, which is one reason the Funny Farm owners relocated to the east side of the highway. He added that the people who bought the previous Funny Farm property were surprised to find out that the use had changed and had been ‘moved’ to the other side of the highway. Mr. Russell stated that this ruling was never appealed, but it would help if a declaratory ruling could be made at this time. Commissioner Baney said that she feels that this is not really a fee waiver request but something else that should be addressed in a different manner. Mr. Russell stated that the fee waiver process started because he was under the impression that the property owner’s permission was needed to proceed. He has since found out that this is not the case. Commissioner Luke said that Deschutes Junction has been unclear for a long time. He thinks the County and residents deserve some clarity. Commissioner Unger asked what the next steps would be, and what the declaratory ruling would accomplish. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Pages Nick Lelack stated that this effort would be incorporated into the comprehensive plan update work being done on this area. The financial question is, they can make an administrative ruling, but if the Board does not call it up, it will be subject to an appeal. Mr. Russell said that the public would have a chance to respond if it is called up by the Board. Otherwise, it would have to be appealed and there are costs associated with it going to the Hearings Officer. Commissioner Luke suggested that the Board authorize reimbursement of Community Development up to $1,230, an amount equal to the fee, for staff time and expenses, but to be clear that this is not a fee waiver but a request for review and a declaratory ruling. Commissioner Unger would also like to see this issue clarified. UNGER: Move approval of funding up to $1,230 to cover staff time to research and write the declaratory ruling on the permanent residential status of the pink building on the Fagen property; and, after staff issues its administrative decision, the Board will call up that decision and hold a public hearing. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 3. Transportation Systems Plan Update. Peter Russell explained there have been memoranda and other documents produced and analyzed. Performance standards for some areas have been reviewed, and some improvements to the failing areas are suggested. Most of the failing locations involve where County roads meet State highways. There is so much volume on the highways that this impacts the other roads. He referred to a map showing the problem areas. The model just shows what is failing now, assuming it will also be failing in twenty years if nothing changes. One suggestion is to add travel lanes and turn lanes. At-grade separated interchanges are best but can only be done in specific locations. There are 260 transportation analysis zones in the County. Tom Blust stated that there are other ways of prioritizing the locations; for instance, by looking at accident history, use and so on. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010 Page 4 of 6 Pages Commissioner Unger said there should be plans for short, medium and long- term issues. Mr. Blust said the capital improvement plan would be updated when the TSP is adopted. There is also the system development charge to consider, which also needs to be updated. The CIP is considered short-term because there is no way to determine costs more than five years out. The Burgess Road problem area is around Meadow and Huntington Roads. There are also issues around Baker Road, which is a complex area. Commissioner Unger said that people do not care whose road it is, they just want the system to work. Some roads are affected by cities, the County and the State. People are mobile and just want to get there. He just wants to make sure everyone works together. 4. Update of Commissioners’ Meetings and Schedules. None were discussed. 5. Other Items. Commissioner Luke said there has been a series of e-mails between him, County Counsel and Community Development staff regarding the Outward Bound appeal and photos taken of the structures. He wants to be sure that the other Commissioners have the same information available to them. Commissioner Unger updated the Board on the Collaborative Forest Restoration project. They are trying to determine what is meant by collaborative and how to work together to create a plan that helps all involved. The charter and ground rules include thirty parties who will work with the Forest Service. Commissioner Baney asked if this establishes any kind of costs or budget. Commissioner Unger said that there are two individuals working on this project that should be reimbursed for some of their efforts, perhaps through grants. Commissioner Unger stated that there would be a signing event at some point. He asked if Board approval is needed to move forward with this effort. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010 Page 5 of 6 Pages This is separate from timber receipt dollars, and comes from different sources of funding. Commissioner Baney asked if it is necessary to pursue this funding as well. Commissioner Unger said that this involves forest health, and the other involves the sale of timber. UNGER: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. __________________________________________ Dave Kanner asked about a letter that came to the Board from a person who is concerned about individuals in her neighborhood feeding wildlife, which is not necessarily healthy for the animals or safe for the area. It appears there are no laws that prohibit this, even though the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife discourages this type of activity. There might be legislation introduced to address this issue. There are cities that have ordinances prohibiting this because they do not want to attract larger predators to an area. Commissioner Luke suggested that the citizen be advised to contact ODF&W and her legislators to help them develop appropriate laws. Commissioner Unger feels this is more of an educational problem and has not risen to the point of being a safety issue. __________________________________________ Mr. Kanner said that he is still having a problem finding a date for a meeting of the Board and Patrick Flaherty, the District Attorney-elect. He would like to have this meeting occur before a Board vote needs to be taken on the union agreement. Commissioner Luke said that a real effort has been made to work with Mr. Flaherty, and things should not be delayed because it is not convenient for Mr. Flaherty to meet. Mr. Kanner stated that the Board reviewed the contract with the Board already, line by line, and it has been ratified by the union. Mr. Flaherty has had a copy for some time and has had plenty of time to read it. The agreement needs to be ratified prior to the end of the year. If it is not approved, it will probably end up being subject to potentially costly binding arbitration.