Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-13 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, MAY 13, 2009 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Anderson and Barbara Rich, Community Development; Mark Pilliod and Chris Bell, Legal Counsel; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; and two other citizens. No representatives of the media were present. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Discussion of Services Provided to Solid Waste by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services Program. Mike Slater, District Supervisor of the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services Program, gave an overview of the program. It is a cooperative program but is meant to benefit county residents. The Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife have been partners previously, but have withdrawing from participation more each year. Commissioner Luke suggested that this could be because there is less open ground and more people and housing. Mr. Slater said that this has in fact increased his department’s workload. The program in this area has become broad spectrum due to increasing wildlife-urban interface issues. Mr. Schimke said that the new electronics recycling law is supposed to operate at no cost to the County. Manufacturers can also propose and develop their own program rather than donating to local governments. Four large groups have been formed that made a lot of promises on what they will take in. The concern is if the collector hits its quota, based on percentages, and drops away. Mr. Schimke stated that he is looking at other options. As requirements get greater and more recycling is needed, it gets more difficult to get some of the public to comply. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Page 1 of 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Page 2 of 10 2. Continued Discussion of Requests from Forest View Special Road District and Panoramic View Estates Special Road District for County Assistance. Tom Blust gave a brief overview of the request, which has to do with 1.6 miles of road in Forest View subdivision that the residents would like to have the County control for dust. Despite the cut-through traffic and school buses, it is not a unique situation in the County. Others will want this same service and then where does it stop. He recommends that the County does not get involved. A special road district has the means to handle this on its own. In the past the County’s contractors have indicated that they will do work in those areas for the same cost as what they charge the County. ___________________________________ Another area is a road that serves as a secondary access road in Panoramic View Estates. (Mr. Blust referred to an oversized map at this time.) It went over the difficulties of going along property lines. A better option might be to use County-owned property for an easement, or a public road right-of-way that would be a conditional use. County Forester Joe Stutler said that he supports this strongly, from a wildfire protection point of view. Mr. Blust said the homeowners would take care of future maintenance but would not be able to do all of the initial development of the roadway. They got a cost estimate done at around $12,000 to put down gravel on an existing roadbed. The cost to the County would be similar. Mr. Blust said that Mr. Stutler thought there might be FEMA or grant money available for this, provided the property owners cover part of it. The other cost is the land use action, which is about $1,700. The advantage of going through the conditional use process is that it would give all of the adjacent property owners an opportunity to comment. Mr. Blust stated this could be done as a one-time expenditure and the property owners would take it from there. It may be possible to roll the land use costs into the grant. The Commissioners agreed with staff’s recommendation to proceed with this project. 3. Update of 19th Street Construction Timeline. Mr. Blust presented the 19th Street extension project development timeline. He then explained where they are on the chart and when to expect funding or grants. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Page 4 of 10 Normally if a business decision is made that a particular position is no longer required or funding is not available, they would go through the article 14 process and look at the organizational unit and everyone who fits that position. Based on that analysis, someone would likely be laid off. There is only one senior planner in the environmental health division. If this analysis is required, current and past practice should be to compare only those within the division. It was not felt that this was necessary. Commissioner Unger said that there are six senior planners, some of which are specialists. You would not compare a long-range planner or transportation planner with an environmental planner or a general planner. He sees these as a different classification. The job descriptions have a lot of differences. A general is a planner who has come up through the ranks. There is a difference in those groups. If you considered planners, you would look at the three differently. He does not see this as an article 14 grievance. Commissioner Baney said the difficulty she has is that the positions were not compared at all. There was a lot of weight given to the fact that it was a time- limited position. The work ended when the grant was exhausted. She disagreed that the time limited employee component played a larger part. Tom Anderson stated that the business decision part of the process was to eliminate that position. It was the lack of funding. Whether she was viewed as a temporary or regular employee was irrelevant. Commissioner Baney said that there are no separate funds for long-range planner, so if that work is done, would that person go away. Mr. Anderson said he does not know, as they have not looked at that classification. In the building division they separate inspectors based on certifications and expertise. Commissioner Luke stated that long-range planners are always needed. Commissioner Unger said that as they move through the comprehensive plan update, there might be changes in what is required. That position could go away, also. Commissioner Baney said that the results might be the same if they are all compared, but in principal, there are skill sets to consider across the board. Since it was called a senior planner position and was no longer limited duration, the process used to make this decision was not the best. She would like to look at all of the positions and compare them. Perhaps you would get down to three different positions. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Page 6 of 10 There is a hearing scheduled for June 16, and a request was made to mail to all EFU owners and a second request was to mail to properties adjacent to EFU properties even if they are zoned MUA. Commissioner Luke said if the applicants are known, it is simpler to do a mailing. It is not often that a decision affects a whole type of property. He does not recall doing this except for comprehensive plan issues, which was tied into the property tax mailing. Commissioner Unger is not opposed to a mailing, but is not sure of the potential benefit. All of the issues and concerns have been brought before the Board by this time. He also said that the legislature is dealing with the private parks issue, which could make this a moot point. He has a problem dealing with spending all of this money when things are so much up in the air right now. He does not see the value of doing this. Commissioner Luke said that most of the people affected have expressed their views. Commissioner Baney stated she would like to see more people involved and interested. She feels that those who are interested are showing up already or are corresponding. She feels a good job is being done and the media is involved. She does not feel that spending $4,000 or more would be a benefit. Commissioner Luke stated that the Board has discussed a lot more about the situation than the Planning Commission has. Commissioner Baney noted that the Planning Commission is advisory and does not have the authority to make a decision. Commissioner Luke would like a mailing sent out to all MUA properties. Commissioner Unger does not think a mailing is needed, but what he would like to get from this is alternate ways to reach people. Commissioner Luke said that there are laws on how people are notified. Dave Kanner said that the legislature may adjourn right after the hearing and the entire matter might be moot at that point. Commissioner Baney would like to see a matrix of the impacts and changes before having the hearing. A work session would be held to discuss the matrix and a hearing would follow in July if appropriate, which would involve a mailing to MUA property owners prior to the hearing. ________________________ At this time, the Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation, in regard to event venues. Afterwards a decision was made. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Page 7 of 10 UNGER: Move that Code enforcement be withheld if a copy of the contract can be produced showing that a 2009 event was booked by September 2008. BANEY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: No. (Split vote.) UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. ________________________ Regarding a request for a support letter for funding for Central Oregon Irrigation District regarding piping 2.5 miles of their canal, Commissioner Unger asked that the Board approve and sign it. LUKE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. ________________________ Concerning previous discussions regarding the Sheriff’s Office and Parole & Probation Department, Commissioner Baney said that she has given this a lot of thought and would like to continue investigating the possibility of combining the two groups. Her concerns are timing, and having agreements in place that the Board would not relinquish its authority over the programs handled by Parole & Probation. Commissioner Luke asked whether this would be budgetary control or affect what programs are utilized. She would like both. She would also like to look at this in thirty days or sixty days to learn the cost and delivery benefits. Within two years, the objectives that should be met would be determined. Her reasoning is long-term benefits and she feels it can be a win-win situation. Commissioner Unger stated that he sees the Sheriff’s office doing enforcement, the Judges doing judiciary and corrections doing what they do. His concern is whether the SO could differentiate what they do from what is done by Parole & Probation separately. He feels there is more cohesiveness between Adult and Juvenile than there is with the Sheriff’s Office. He does not see the benefits at this time. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Baney stated that the Juvenile group has low recidivism, and this is higher in the adult population. She hears the same things she heard three years ago. Parole & Probation said that they have a hard time getting in to see clients. The Sheriff’s Office says that they never show up. Obviously, there is a lack of cohesiveness, and there could be some savings. Commissioner Luke stated that this would primarily involve management. In some counties there is a captain who reports to the Sheriff. They are in the chain of command. Commissioner Baney said that it is possible to have them work together and gain some efficiencies. Commissioner Unger asked if there are problems now, why those couldn’t just be addressed to see if they can be solved without making a radical change. Commissioner Baney feels there is more to it than that; that there could be some fiscal efficiencies found for the long-term. She in no way feels that Ken Hales is not doing his job and he has been an asset to the County. Commissioner Unger stated that perhaps with some guidance, perhaps people could work harder to resolve any issues. Commissioner Luke said that people like decisiveness and do not like to leave things hanging. There is some time to put something together, but by July 1 he would like to see some kind of decision made. Commissioner Baney said that Mr. Hales has streamlined the workload and has done a great job since he has been here. There is a philosophical difference between corrections and enforcement, but steps can be taken to make this work more smoothly. There will be a question of opting out or not next year. Erik Kropp said that it is important to take the people out of the equation and look at the long-term results. It needs to make sense for the County in the future, and if there are some financial benefits they need to be known. It is possible that it would not result in a cost savings. Mr. Kanner stated that the funds for misdemeanants are not fully loaded, and the Sheriff would want to make sure that the funding is correct. Commissioner Baney said it is not so much about the dollars but the service delivery. Mr. Kanner stated there is no agreement that can be entered into with the Sheriff. The only authority the Board has is budget authority. You could reduce his budget or move Parole and Probation out. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Luke said it is one elected official to another, and he feels that this Sheriff would live up to his word. Mr. Kanner asked what the exchange of consideration expected in this agreement. Commissioner Luke said that it is no different from what they have with the Court. It is an understanding of what everyone wants to see done. It is reviewed each year and if there isn’t enough money, one has to be eliminated. This would be no different. Commissioner Baney said in a perfect world, for instance domestic violence supervision, a determination would be made whether to invest money in this misdemeanant population. If it came down to whether or not to supervise, it would be decided in partnership wit the Commissioners. That way if the Sheriff said this couldn’t be funded, it could be worked out or funds withheld. What it sets up for the future is that the intent of the partnership is one that is unique and balances the enforcement and corrections and restorative aspects. Commissioner Luke stated that other jurisdictions have been analyzed, and in some places, it failed when a certain person left. It should not be personality driven but a change can be made later. Commissioner Unger said that he wants to give this more thought. Commissioner Baney wants to be able to give staff guidance. In the Health and Mental Health situation, there was a good opportunity to make a change. This is much more sensitive. She would like to move forward and be respectful. She wants to see what the actual numbers might be and how the service delivery would be handled, and reserves the right to be shown that she is wrong if something totally unexpected shows up. She would want to be sure that Mr. Hales would remain with the County. She is also concerned about how to balance the advisory input of LPSCC. Mr. Kanner said that the Department of Corrections decides who delivers Parole & Probation services, pursuant to a community corrections plan that has been approved by LPSCC. The reality is that no matter what LPSCC recommends, it can be changed. The Department of Corrections will likely do what the Board of Commissioners recommends. Mr. Kanner stated that a meeting with both should be set up, and they should be up front with staff so they know what is going on. Commissioner Baney asked how this could be handled without creating problems within the departments. Mr. Kanner stated that the unions may be supportive, but he doesn’t know how the rank and file would respond. ________________________