Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-28 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, OCTOBER 28, 2009 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Tom Blust, Road Department; Tom Anderson, Teri Payne, Kristen Maze, Peter Russell and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Planning Commissioners Brenda Pace, Christen Brown and Keith Cyrus; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and approximately a dozen other citizens. The meeting was brought to order at 1:55 p.m., following an executive session. 1. Update on Foster Road – Acceptance for County Maintenance. Tom Blust gave an overview of the history of the moratorium on the County taking over the maintenance of roads. The local improvement district was put in place after the moratorium was established, and members of the Special Road District were aware of this. They have come to the Board to seek maintenance after learning that the forest funding was increased and the State put into place an additional gasoline tax. However, the forest funding is being reduced and the County will not get much from the gas tax increase. He said that about 70% of the traffic through the development is from the development. Part of Foster Road is not improved and generally impassible much of the year. The gravel portion is maintained by the Deschutes Recreation Homesites Unit #6 Special Road District. Most of the access roads are County-maintained. Mr. Blust said that the Beaver Special Road District maintained the road prior to and after its improvement. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 1 of 11 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 2 of 11 Pages Robert Dryden, past president of the District, said they went into negotiations with Oregon Water Wonderland #2, regarding a project that benefited all of Oregon Water Wonderland, which made all of their lots buildable. His group could have demanded funding for part of the road paving. It comes back to before that land was provided to Oregon Water Wonderland, the County took over the right of way from the Forest Service. There are four properties on that road with access. Foster Road does not have many driveways on it, so should be brought up as a collector or arterial. It took a long time to get to the process to that point, at which time other local improvement districts were in the works and were allowed to go into the system. There has been an extension of the forest funding, and some of the local improvement districts did not happen after all, so the County did not have to take them all in. Mr. Blust said that most of Foster Road goes through BLM land. The USFS and BLM do not have public road authority. Typically, rather than doing easements for access, they prefer to grant it to a public entity. The County accepted those rights of way. Commissioner Unger asked if collectors and arterials are accepted. Mr. Blust said the first resolution did not allow any to come in to the County. The most recent version left this at the discretion of the Board. Foster Road is classified as a collector on the transportation system plan. The thought was that as funds allow, it would be improved. Commissioner Unger said a collector is classified as a road that does just that. Mr. Blust said it is serving a large area, but based on traffic counts at this point, it serves primarily local needs and not at the collector level. Mr. Dryden asked when the count was done. He said someone was there to do it when most of the part-time residents were gone for the season. He counted it five years ago and the count was higher. Commissioner Luke said the road was paved in 2008 and the road district agreed to keep maintaining it. He asked what has changed since. Charlie Jones, current president of the District, said they are looking for a change that would validate the use. They have a relatively limited budget, but would like to further improve the condition of the roads there. Drainage and upkeep is a constant problem. The other change is that they built it to County standards. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 3 of 11 Pages Bruce Standolf added that one big expense is snowplowing, which takes at least a third of the budget, often more. Mr. Dryden asked about the first resolution. The latest one talks about adequate funding; about 18 miles were to come in and it ended up being less than two miles, so that should make it possible to take in Foster Road. Commissioner Unger said they have to put funds into capital improvements but not necessarily maintenance, as there is some funding available for a few years; however, the problem is not going to go away. Chair Baney stated that this is a unique situation, which is why they are here at this time. Mr. Blust said this is the only LID that had been started but was not completed when the moratorium was put into place. Commissioner Unger said there are reasons why this should be accepted, as a collector or arterial. These roads need to be maintained for fire, law enforcement and other reasons, as well as for school buses and local traffic. Mr. Jones stated that the schools would not send buses until it was improved. Chair Baney asked if the Road Department feels this is beneficial, and if there are concessions that can be made. Mr. Blust said that a new paved road has low maintenance costs for about five years. The main cost the first few years is plowing snow. Mr. Dryden stated that not much maintenance would be required for eight to ten years, and there should be funding by that time. Mr. Blust explained that whoever does the maintenance, it would be low cost for at least five years with the road paved. If funding issues have been resolved, the County could take this over, but that is not known at this time. Commissioner Luke asked if the road stopped at the subdivision, should maintenance be provided. There is about 30% of traffic that comes from other places. Commissioner Unger stated that he would like to work with the road districts to figure out how to handle these situations in the future. Perhaps traffic counts can be done to help develop a policy as to how much assistance should be given. Chair Baney said that the existing roads are not being handled now, and it will not get better. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 4 of 11 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that ODOT was not going to do any new projects for two years until the gas tax increase came about. The County is already talking about which roads to let go back to gravel. There are options. There can be shared maintenance and plowing to save money. Some work can be contracted out. Other options should be explored. Chair Baney asked if the District could go to its membership and talk about how this responsibility can be shared. Commissioner Luke observed that there are other road districts that complain about pass-through traffic. Chair Baney asked about similar situations. Mr. Blust said that Lazy River Drive was similar, but this one is called out as a collector. Chair Baney asked if there are other collectors that are not being maintained. Mr. Blust said that there are a few in the area that might fit this description. Mr. Dryden said they would discuss it further and are okay with this situation as long as they can keep talking with the County and come to some kind of beneficial resolution. At this time, recording equipment was put into place to audio record this next part of the meeting. 2. Comprehensive Plan Update. Teri Payne showed the board displayed at the home show regarding destination resorts. Ms. Lelack said they also talked about generating power through the use of wind, which got a lot of public interest. Approximately 70 to 100 attendees at the home show took the time to give a “vote” on these issues. Other outreach was a community meeting in Terrebonne. Kristen Maze said 65 people turned out, mostly from inside the community. Four stations were put in place, for land use, boundaries, transportation and other ideas. Several options and questionnaires were presented and the public indicated their preferences. Overwhelmingly the people wanted little or no change there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 5 of 11 Pages Another community meeting was held in Tumalo, with about 20 attendees. They were interested in establishing a sewer district, to enhance property values and to allow more and better commercial areas. Most people were those who live outside of the town area but identify with the town. Mr. Lelack said the sewer district would be within the rural community boundary. Ms. Maze said that the people seemed to appreciate the event. One more is scheduled for Deschutes Junction on October 29. Mr. Gutowsky said there was a mix of expertise at these meetings and he felt his department was able to provide a lot of answers. Ms. Maze stated that they will put together a draft community plan for each of the areas, and that process should bring up any issues that are not yet apparent. Both Terrebonne and Tumalo have fairly active community groups. Ms. Payne said another meeting was held in Brothers, with 23 people attending from the area. They started with what was heard last week, what was incorporated and what was not. The major issues are agricultural lands; the large acreages that they are required to have are too unmanageable, with interspersed public lands and public trespass, and conflicts with wildlife agencies. A new inventory was given regarding wildlife plans from the public agencies, along with new recommendations. There was a lot of talk about keeping a balance. This would not change the big game habitat, but will affect the bird sites per ESEE. There is a section that would look at the Goal 5 inventory. Peter Gutowsky added that a committee would be convened to work on these specific issues. Commissioner Luke said that State laws about private land impose restrictions that people will not accept. He asked how this can be addressed. Ms. Payne said that they do not take this lightly and there is discretion. Under Measure 49, government entities could be subject to the just compensation provision. Mr. Lelack said these decisions do have an impact. The review period is to hear all of the concerns. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 6 of 11 Pages Climate change and piping canals were also discussed. Ms. Maze asked whether to include action or just leave it at goals. They have heard from the Farm Bureau, Land Watch and others. Most liked the concept, but felt it was too big and cumbersome. The Farm Bureau had some information regarding farm uses. They would like to see the wildlife section removed completely, since there is plenty of public land available. Land Watch felt the action items were not complete. They are looking for funding sources. At this point, they are taking in all this information and tracking it. The Planning Commission expressed concern over the interagency report. They have considered implementing this before, and asked that it now be included. They wan to try to find a balance. They offered to create a matrix showing goals, policies and actions. They have heard that it is too lengthy, and just should include basic goals. They are incorporating what DLCD requires as well. Commissioner Luke said that it should be general, giving guidance and guidelines. The Planning Commission expressed that they do not think revisions will be easy enough and want more outside of the plan. Ms. Craghead said that there should not be a loss of actions in the comprehensive plan or ESEEs that might be required. Peter Gutowsky stated that the detail plan is complicated, but was reduced down to 90 pages. The scorecard will allow a manageable document that will allow modifications or changes. The source documents are also included, as most did not come to them in any other way. This will help prove certain things. Mr. Lelack said that there are a lot of action items, and there is a tendency to make it too long. Commissioner Unger asked where does it land when the population information is considered. Ms. Maze said that Oregon land use is supposed to discourage growth outside of the cities. Commissioner Unger noted that balance is a key issue. There will be growth. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 7 of 11 Pages Ms. Payne replied that they may not be allowed to have any more than that. Commissioner Luke said that if the past rate of growth had continued, there would not be much left in the rural areas in the future. Commissioner Unger stated that they should listen to those living in the country, as perhaps things can change so that family farms can be supported. Peter Gutowsky noted that the plan is aspirational in that way. They want people to think big, and consider the next twenty years. There is a piece on the ‘big look’. They have to work with the legislature on the ‘big look’ to achieve balance. Ms. Payne said that if funding becomes available, agricultural lands could be examined. The Board indicated that they would like to see the public provide input and then the issues narrowed. Planning Commission: Keith Cyrus, Chair of the Planning Commission, said they are not yet there as a quorum, but have their opinions. He personally takes this undertaking very seriously, as they have lived a long time with the original. It will be hard to stick with the current timeline, if there is thorough review. There might even need to be Saturday sessions. They are having trouble getting direction. They will deal with the less controversial issues first. Fish & Wildlife’s interagency report mandates some things be included that are contradictory to other sections. With 80% of land public, those agencies should take care of their own back yards before pressuring private property owners. He said he has a feeling that the report should not dictate what private landowners can or cannot do. Perhaps they can compensate or buy properties for their purposes. No one wants to rubber stamp the plan unless it is fully understood. He presented a copy of a letter from Richard Kylce. Susan Quatre would like to hear all of the public comment first, and then handle the document line by line. She wants to see things go easier and mean something to people. A lot of new residents need to know the history and background. She knows there have to be action items to give direction. There also have to be links between where you come from and where you want to go, how to get there and how often this should be reevaluated. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 8 of 11 Pages Chair Baney asked about handling the documents as action items. Ms. Quatre said she would like to see columns with the action items that can be analyzed carefully. Public input should come first, and then they can grind through the document. Mr. Cyrus said the last meeting was a hearing, and there was public there, which did not allow enough time for much analysis. Christen Brown said he is looking for a complete replacement of what is on the books now. All they want is some guiding action. If there are too many pieces, it becomes a free for all, as they can find many contradictions. For instance, regarding farm stands – some state agencies want it in, others say no. There needs to be generic language, and supporting or action items are a problem. Reviewing and prioritizing is a huge problem. This should not be a part of the document. They cannot have the comp plan be everything to everybody and make them all feel good. It needs to be more general. They are looking to Commissioners to know how this should be pursued. Commissioner Luke said that having public hearings on the actions items could produce a mix. The question of how to do things will split people up. It can get too complicated. Ms. Maze stated that the document is too large and cumbersome. There need to be supporting documents on the side and not part of the document. Chair Baney noted that action items can be used against it also. They are depending on the Planners’ expertise. Then there is zoning to consider. Commissioner Luke said that the Board was presented with a timeline, but he has no problem if it takes longer. 3. Discussion of Tumalo Irrigation District’s Appeal of the Historic Landmarks Decision regarding Fencing and Landscaping at Shevlin Park Dam. Kristen Maze said there is considerable history with this appeal, being considered since 2005. She gave an overview of the item. An exception was given regarding fencing, which brought it back to the Historic Landmarks Commission. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 9 of 11 Pages An appeal was made in 2007, but the applicant asked that it be put on hold so the landscape plan could be reevaluated. In December 2008, the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) held another hearing. The plan was then denied again. Tumalo Irrigation District wants to reactivate the plan. There are a lot of issues. The fence was put in after the work was done for safety reasons, and was required. The HLC said it was put up before permission was granted. Laurie Craghead said that it was supposed to be reviewed by the HLC before installation. Commissioner Unger asked if the owner can choose to be off the landmarks list. Ms. Craghead said that the area where the fence is has no jurisdiction by the HLC to deny the plan. The appeal for the Board is whether they have jurisdiction to deny the plan. Only the headgate is a historic site. The new headgate was approved and a plaque put up acknowledging that an old one was there in the past. It is unreasonable to deny this because there is nothing historical to consider now. Commissioner Luke asked who legal counsel is for HLC. Ms. Craghead said they can speak as a Commission but cannot file an appeal. Only an adjacent property owner could file an appeal. The HLC could express an opinion but have no right to appeal. It is unknown whether there is an opponent at this time; that could come up at the time of the hearing. The Parks District owns the land that the fence is on; Tumalo Irrigation District has an easement through it. In Goal 5, it clearly calls out the headgate but not the surrounding area. Commissioner Luke stated that it appears that negotiations will not go anywhere. Ms. Craghead said in 2005 they did not have legal counsel and went in with a fencing plan that was denied. They appealed that. In the meantime, they submitted a plan for what they are going to do with the fish ladder and something different with the headgate. That portion was approved but not the fencing or landscape plan. Only the landscaping plan, with the fence, is coming before the Board. This was the original appeal. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 10 of 11 Pages Commissioner Luke asked why it went to the HLC in the first place. Ms. Craghead said the fence was an addition for safety reasons. HLC went beyond its authority, however. The staff person at the time was on the HLC and thought they had authority to do so. The request would be to approve the landscaping and fencing plan since there was no authority of the HLC to deny it, and if there was, it was unreasonable to do so. There are property owners who oppose the fencing but may not have standing. They may be basing their opposition solely on the HLC’s opinion. Commissioner Unger said that the HLC needs to be clear on their scope and where they are going. They can be difficult to work with. They should be supported, but their mission needs to be clear. Ms. Craghead said she will work with the City’s attorney to see if a meeting can be coordinated to perhaps provide some training to the HLC members. 4. Other Items. Mr. Kanner said that a request has been made to approve an application for a competitive grant for intensive drug treatment. Ken Hales found it would take a lot of up front funding to apply and they may not even get it. However, Judge Brady really wants to pursue it. Ernie Mazorol, the Court Administrator, and Judge Sullivan asked Mr. hales to get the Board to agree not to apply for the grant. The grant would provide about half of the daily cost of treatment. LUKE: Move that if the Courts want to pursue the grant, that the Courts agree to provide funds required to cover any shortages that might arise as a result of obtaining the grant. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.