The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-02-02 Business Meeting Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 1 of 14 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 BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2015 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Sheriff Larry Blanton, Capt. Shane Nelson and other Sheriff’s Office staff; Will Groves, Community Development; and approximately a dozen other citizens. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. __________________________ 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT Citizen William Kuhn said he would like to greet and thank the Sheriff and his staff. He met Mr. Blanton in early 2001, when Les Stiles was Sheriff. Prior to that there was a mishandled case involving harassment and assault at his property. There is now a much better rapport and response to the needs of the wildlife overlay zone and other situations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 2 of 14 He said he is sure the Sheriff is aware of the Latin word culpa, which means negligence or misconduct. Today that means blamable or a breach of legal duty, deserving of moral blame. He and his wife, Deschutes County, and th e other party that lives in his cluster development are locked into a silly little dance, and he is not allowed to talk with the Board because it would be ex parte contact. His opinion is that there are two of three parties that are culpable. He does not think he and his wife are. (He reiterated information previously stated.) He feels he should not have to work with such people. In regard to land use, he feels like he cannot protect himself when the other parties are not playing fair. He can only hope that the poison being directed towards him won’t kill him. 3. Before the Board was a Discussion of Sheriff’s Office Transition. Sheriff Larry Blanton gave an overview of his proposal for transition in his office due to his upcoming retirement. There has to be a lot of pre-planning for this to go smoothly. He explained the steps that have been taken up to this point. Sheriff Blanton and staff support Capt. Shane Nelson taking over the role of Sheriff at that time. He has basically three undersheriffs rather than one, the Captains that run each division (Nelson, Beard and Utter), rather than one Undersheriff as had been done previously, which would have financially impacted the Department. Other agencies and the public seem to support this plan. Making this plan clear now makes it easier to transition others to be in place at the time of his retirement; this will briefly overspend budget for some positions, but it is important to be able to make the change happen efficiently. Capt. Nelson stated he is humbled by this, and it is hard to be as fluent a public speaker as the Sheriff. (He provided a handout at this time.) He said his wife and four children, and the men and women at the Sheriff’s Office, the public and the Sheriff support this change. He feels he is eligible and qualified for this role. He gave an overview of his life and career, having been born and raised in this area, and where he has always lived. He has been involved with the communities here his whole life. He wants to be sure this area remains safe and livable, with a high quality of life. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 3 of 14 He is proud of the Sheriff, a leader who has earned the trust of citizens and agencies. He is proud also of the Sheriff’s Office officers and staff. He has received letters of support regarding him taking over the role of Sheriff. He is grateful for the support of the Commissioners and others. This has been a valuable partnership. He is proud of the proactive service of the Department. He did not sign up for this kind of work expecting a lot of gratitude or acknowledgement, but they are honored to assist people. Everything falls into their job description. He presented letters of support from the Sheriff’s Office staff. Their help is needed or it couldn’t get done. He also noted letters of support fr om the Redmond School Board, and some long-time Bend residents. Commissioner Baney noted that they have also received some letters of support, which they will share. Capt. Nelson said that Sheriff Blanton has mentored others for forty years. They will carry on his legacy, which has led the community and office to great heights. They need to always reach a little bit further. Sheriff Blanton has done an excellent job in instilling this goal, and his leadership has been second to none. It has been a huge commitment for Sheriff Blanton and his family. Capt. Nelson said he appreciates those in the Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Blanton and his family, and his own family. Chair DeBone said they have been only eight Sheriffs in almost 100 years. He is grateful for this dedication. Commissioner Unger stated Sheriff Blanton is the best one he has known, and appreciates the work that has been done. Commissioner Baney added that she is grateful for his leadership, through some very financially challenging times, building a foundation especially through stable funding. Other counties look at Deschutes County and wonder how this happened. It is because of dedication and hard work. She sees this in Capt. Nelson as well and appreciates the work being done for a s mooth transition. Sheriff Blanton has instilled confidence within the community. This is not the case in many other places. She is grateful for the work towards quality of life and safety. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 4 of 14 The Commissioners clarified the process. Commissioner Baney s tated that having an election at this point is not an option by law. An appointment is required. David Doyle said that ORS has a complex process, which triggers a general election date in the future. The primary is not until May 2016. Commissioner Baney is supportive of moving forward and supporting the plan as explained. She asked for an Order to be drafted to formally do this. Commissioner Unger is supportive as well, knowing that this should begin today. Chair DeBone said that there is great leadership and a great culture, and this is the proper step to take. Commissioner Baney stated that her success in her elected capacity is due in large part to the bench of the Sheriff’s Office. She is grateful for this. It takes the team there to make this happen. She knows Capt. Nelson is committed to a smooth transition and will make a great Sheriff as well. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on a Modification of a Conditions Application to Change the Wildlife Management Plan Approved for the Subject Property (File #CU-00-65 and MA-01-9, Shepherd). Chair DeBone opened the public hearing. Will Groves then gave his staff report on this item. (A copy of his presentation is attached for reference.) Regarding bias, conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts, and prior hearings observations, Commissioner Baney said they have had a work session on this issue and she has visited the property. Commissioner Unger stated he read the reports and met once with the Shepherds, but has not visited the property. He feels he can be impartial. Chair DeBone said he has visited the property but feels he can give an unbiased opinion. Mr. Groves explained the wildlife management plan and its importance to wildlife, and what is required. The actions relating to this property are unclear and it is felt a new plan would be better. It focuses on forage enhancement, which may mean removing juniper trees which compete against other vegetation. A new plan would wholly remove the previous plan’s obligations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 5 of 14 There have been some goals met under the current plan, per the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. Other goals were not met or are unclear. This decision was appealed by Central Oregon Landwatch, mostly regarding the location of the impact areas, and not so much about forage. The competition for forage is the real issue to be addressed today. He referred to the Shepherd’s desire to host weddings on the property. This is not part of this issue today, as it is being addressed separately. Habitat values are the issues covered by the wildlife management plan. He will present what is recommended and ask how the Board wants to proceed. Chair DeBone said it appears there is one request to speak besides the applicant. __________________________ Dave Hunicutt of Oregonians in Action, and his client Mr. Shepherd, came before the Board. They are fine with the existing decision, but Mr. Hunicutt said they are not speaking to the private park application, but on a narrow application regarding the wildlife management plan. The original plan was issued as part of the approval of the dwelling in the past, and they are asking that the findings and decision in that July 5, 2001 case be incorporated into the record. The criteria for amending the plan is found in Code, and the standard is because the dwelling was to be placed further than 300 feet from Holmes Road, the owner at the time had to provide a plan to protect wildlife values. The County approved the plan at that time. He believes the modification s to the plan, along with suggestions from staff, afford much greater protection to wildlife. They have been working with a wildlife biologist and representatives of the ODF&W on a plan that spells things out much more clearly. He pointed out that this is a County criterion, and the State does not require that a dwelling be within 300 feet from the road or that there be some of the other requirements. This is a local requirement. The Board’s findings will be given deference at the State level by LUBA and the Court of Appeals. Central Oregon Landwatch submitted an appeal and raised five basic issues. The first has to do with condition #1 of staff’s approval, having to do with vegetative buffers. (He referred to his letter dated January 30, 2014.) Central Oregon Landwatch refers to condition #3 of the original plan. The Shepherd’s feel they have satisfied the criteria with the planting of dozens of trees, lawn and native grasses. The new plan requires those plants that die off be replenished. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 6 of 14 The second Landwatch question had to do with juniper management. Juniper competes with native grasses. ODF&W recommended removing some of the juniper and replanting those areas with native grasses to increase the forage, and make brush piles for birds and small animals. The existing pl an calls for cutting small juniper trees, but does not give a number or specify the areas, so it is vague. The new plan would include which trees in what areas are to be removed, but that forage be provided in at least twenty-five acres. They have already removed ten acres of juniper. They also need both ODF&W and County approval for this change. Landwatch wants to be sure the native plants survive, but the property owner is seeking grant funds from the state for the purchase of native grasses to replenish them as needed. Landwatch brought up a limitation on grazing, since deer and livestock compete for the existing forage and water. The existing plan had some limitations on grazing but the modified plan does not. The limitation in the existing plan i s found in condition #6 of the plan, and says that it would be good for the cattle to be off the property for certain times of the year, in the winter. However, the ‘grazing areas’ are not specified, nor is where the cattle should go. The Shepherds have applied and been approved for water rights to create pasture land for cattle in a specific area, and have a fenced feed lot for the cattle in the winter. They are also willing to limit cattle use of other areas to a maximum of four weeks, in the summer months. This would protect the remaining 206 acres, including the areas that will be reseeded. The existing plan does not have this requirement. In regard to road usage and the driveway, this limitation is not in the new plan. The existing plan does not give much detail on this. The road would be used less most months even if their private park application is approved for the summer months, when the deer are elsewhere. He and his client are fine with the staff’s recommendation or with additions as he explained. Mr. Shepherd said they have been working on this for about 3.5 years. He submitted a map showing where the juniper has already been removed and other areas that are under consideration for this. Those 25 acres will be rehabilitated. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 7 of 14 Another map shows where the cattle will be for grazing and roaming, and the feed lot pen for the winter months. He won’t graze them more than four weeks to fulfill the requirement of EFU land. He presented a photo of the trees they already planted, and approval of the grant for seed. His neighbors got an allowance in 2005 to build further than 300 feet from the road. They agreed to three major conditions. They planted four areas, 50x50 of vegetation, about ¼ acre. He will be rehabilitating 25 acres. They agreed to remove small junipers; he is removing 90% of junipers. They are required to build four brush piles, while he is building about 75 as required by ODF&W. They are trying to be more than accommodating. He said one option is for a decision today, and he requested this so they can move forward on the work. He can’t do anything with the private park application without this being resolved first. __________________________ Paul Dewey of Central Oregon Landwatch spoke. He is appreciative of the Shepherds doing a better wildlife management plan, as these are often vague; however, they submitted the appeal because they do not feel it is adequate. He asked for the seven days to review today’s submitted materials. The approval of the dwelling and plan happened 14 years ago. The original plan was vague in some ways, but also was specific about where to leave juniper and bitterbrush. There is no analysis of what has happened in that 14 years. One new condition is no juniper removal along the access road. ODF&W said it has already been limbed and the bitterbrush removed. So already something has been done to the driveway in violation of the old plan. The new plan has this requirement but this work was already done. This needs to be documented. The record is inadequate to show how they should comply in the future. Another issue was screening, vague in the old plan, but the new plan says ‘various screening trees’. They describe a flower border that is just decorative. The aspen trees were planted between the house and other buildings. The idea is to screen for wildlife. This needs to be clarified. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 8 of 14 There was an original proposal to plant several hundred pine trees, but this was never done. He does not know where the new plantings have occurred. This is important for the Shepherds as they are to maintain those at all times. It needs to be clear what and where. Screening is condition #3, tree planting is condition #4, and he’d like to see the photos submitted. In regard to seeding thinned areas, there is not a similar provision as there is for the driveway. It is hard to seed areas and some years this does not work so well. The original plan referenced irrigation rights to use it to successfully seed. It is not clear if this will happen with the new plan and new water rights, unless clarified in today’s submittal. It is important to keep out the cheat grass as well. Regarding forage competition, this came up in the new application as a concern. They submitted a farm management plan originally with the wildlife management plan. The farm management plan got removed but the reference is still there in the wildlife plan. Perhaps they have changed it recently. Perhaps staff feels there is no linkage there now and is not relevant. It is also not clear in Code what the change in circumstances is that justifies this being done. It appears that non-compliance with the original plan and its vagueness were the reasons, but those are not really a change in circumstances. The Board needs to know what has been done over 14 years, to be clear on what clearing and seeding should be done. They speak of doing more than what others have done, but a larger issue is what to do when you work with ODF&W and staff, if the conditions are not followed or tracked. He feels building on the rimrock was probably the worst place for wildlife reasons. The mitigation required for that previous action was not followed. Regarding vehicular usage of the driveway, this was in the original plan, just being a residence. He is anticipating that this will be used for more than the usual traffic and that is a reason for the new plan, removing this requirement. It does make a difference when a home is sited more than 300 feet from the road. Traffic is a critical element and should be in the new plan. __________________________ William Kuhn said that he has thanked the Shepherds and Mr. Hunicutt for putting together a good plan. Considering the concern is a wildlife area overlay zone, it is not just looking at deer habitat. Other animals are impacted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 9 of 14 He asked who can monitor; who has the right to monitor what is going on ; and who has the obligation to monitor what is going on. Is this expected to be ODF&W or a neighbor? Also, who pays for monitoring and how often it should occur? He knows monitoring does not occur regarding property across the road from his home. When ODF&W spoke about the plan to the Soil and Water Conservation District, ODF&W said it is an unfunded mandate. He suggested that they take some tax money and redirect it for monitoring purposes by the ODF&W. On his 33 acres of wildlife habitat, which is not in a plan due to no agreement with the neighbors, there are at least 132 piles of brush there. They need four piles of brush per acre. ODF&W’s requirement is completely inadequate. He is not in favor or against what is going on there. But wants to see more brush piles, and asked who is monitoring what is supposed to happen. __________________________ Matt Lisignoli of Terrebonne is reluctant to comment, because he feels the deer and wildlife are going to prevail. They are planting pine trees and aspen just to be killed off by deer. And there is a problem having to water them. Deer beat him up all year long. None of the wildlife he knows about seem to be shy. He does not understand the seeding and screening, and taking out juniper. Lower Bridge has crops that are sustainable, with juniper and other plants still in place, and the deer seem to do well in any case. __________________________ Mr. Hunicutt stated that Mr. Dewey asked for specific location for the trees to be planted, which might allow for monitoring. The existing plan does not require replanting or a location for the trees to be planted. The modified plan doesn’t either, but the fact they have to replant is included. The existing plan says they have to plant pine trees, but it is unclear how many or where. The new plan is clearer with some trees already planted. The change in circumstances is because there are new owners who were not involved in the original plan. They are trying to comply with a plan that is difficult to understand, so wish to have a better plan. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 10 of 14 He said that Mr. Dewey indicated that the existing plan was not followed. The Shepherds have tried to do so in spite of the vagaries. They would rather have something that is a better plan and easier to follow. Mr. Shepherd said that regarding the house on the rimrock, he was told by the ODF&W that this gets the house out of the central area and away from where the deer eat and sleep. They have already gotten approval to move the road for that reason. He believes they are complying with the existing plan as much as possible. There was no prohibition against lambing trees. The next plan requires compliance, and he assumes someone will be checking up on them. __________________________ Commissioner Baney said they just answered one question; in her time here, she sees that some plans are not that easy to understand or follow. The piece about not limbing trees seems contrary to wildfire mitigation. The part around the use of the driveway is not in the conditions of approval. They don’t want to open this to benefit another application, so she wants to be sure that is stand- alone and keeps the process holistic. They don’t want to presuppose another application by their actions on this one. Regarding monitoring and payment, she asked if the property owner picks up the costs for this, and who does the monitoring. Mr. Groves said that this is a problem with many conditions of approval. There are ongoing obligations for the property owners as well. The difficulty is that the owner is not required to set up monitoring. This happened with the previous plan. They have not taken the position to require a paid third-party agency come out and do this, as is done in other areas. These conditions are more robust than usual with certain timeframes. It does put a burden on ODF&W and staff. He is not sure how to do this better, or if ODF&W has a fund for ongoing monitoring. Commissioner Baney asked if there might be some new technology that could be used to do part of this, or dated photos from the owner showing what has been done. It is warranted to mention the bell has been rung on this original plan, and they are adding conditions that were not there before. There has to be a balance. Commissioner Unger said that a farm management plan and wildlife management plan should have some synergy. A lot has been suggested. In the winter deer range, the plan is the relevant in the winter. He understands they migrate mostly at that time. Activities on the road will happen mostly in the summer months. He wishes to review the maps. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 11 of 14 Chair DeBone feels that this might be more of a bedding issue than feeding. Deer feed in fields or almost anyplace. He asked if there is a process for a review of a wildlife plan if there are to be changes. Mr. Groves said that if there is a significant change proposed, they will look at potential conflicts with the plan. Commissioner Baney asked what happened with the farm management plan. Mr. Groves said that a property this size is a special situation regarding farm dwellings. They are allowed where there are better soils and income from farming. There is a special situation for 160 acres or more; they have to show they are farming and that the farming makes sense. Unlike other farm management plans with income tests, it is unclear what is required. The previous owner wanted to increase farm use and get more irrigation. LUBA cases suggest a snapshot in time, a house for the farm at the time. If they are then unable to farm later, the dwelling does not change. The new plan does not conflict with the ability to farm. This won’t break it in any case for this property. Mr. Groves clarified that there was a question about the road usage and deer. The private park is in the hopper but not a part of this issue. The road is offset from the deer habitat issue. Another issue is the old and new plans and how they blend. ODF&W said there is nothing in the old plan that has to be mitigated or needs to be included with the new plan. The new plan stands alone. How it was done in the past is not relevant with the new plan. Commissioner Baney asked if additional activity is disruptive to wildlife. Mr. Groves said the previous plan said there would be little usage of the road, but no criteria stating how many cars or how often. In this case, this is not part of the current mitigation package. ODF&W feels that it is mitigated regardless of the road. This may come up if the private park is approved, but that is a different case. Commissioner Baney asked if because it is not stated, is there a danger that this will be considered unimportant in the future. Mr. Groves stated they will be asked this question specifically in any future case. ODF&W may say this is not a problem since the wedding season and deer migration se ason are different. But this will probably come to the Board in that context. If it has to be clarified in this case, it may create obstacles in future cases when it is not warranted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 12 of 14 Regarding the screening around the dwelling, ODF&W has asked that this be maintained as shown in the 2014 record photos. This is a specific requirement. He does not think they have to plant 300 pine trees, but that they would be 300 feet from the dwelling. Mr. Lelack said that if requested by any of the parties, the Board needs to allow for seven days of review of information, and seven more days for rebuttal. Laurie Craghead added this is the first evidentiary hearing for this case, so the seven days are required, plus seven days for rebuttal from the applicant. Traditionally the Board provides an open time to receive new information as well. The record will be held open until February 9, 5 PM, and another eight days to February 17 for rebuttal due to the legal holiday. Deliberations will follow. The oral record was closed, with the written record left open. __________________________ Commissioner Baney left the meeting at this point (12:05 p.m.) Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. UNGER: Move approval of the Consent Agenda except for the business meeting minutes of January 28 and the work session of January 26. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 5. Board Signature of Order No. 2015-007, Authorizing the Disposal of Two Surplus Vehicles (Sheriff’s Office) 6. Board Signature of Order No. 2015-002, Initiating the Vacation of a Right-of- Way Located off Warrin Road (near Fryrear Road) 7. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2015-002, Vacating a Right-of-Way Located off Warrin Road (near Fryrear Road) 8. Board Signature of Document No. 2015-086, an Acceptance Deed for a Right- of-Way Located off Warrin Road (near Fryrear Road) Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 13 of 14 9. Board Signature of Letters Reappointing Cheryl Davidson and David Bishop to the Deschutes County Fair Board, through December 31, 2017 10. Approval of Economic Development Discretionary Grant Awards:  Center for Economic Research & Forecasting (CERF) - $1,500  NeighborImpact - $1,500  Network of Volunteer Administrators (NOVA) - $1,500  OSU/Deschutes County Extension - $1,500  Central Oregon Council on Aging (COCOA) - $1,200  Adventist Community Services - $1,000  Deschutes County Coalition for Human Dignity - $1,200  Saving Grace - $1,200 11. Approval of Minutes:  Business Meeting of January 26 and 28, 2015  Work Session of January 26, 2015 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $13,546.30. UNGER: Move approval, subject to review. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $438.09. UNGER: Move approval, subject to review. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $820,371.22. UNGER: Move approval, subject to review. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 15. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no other items brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m. DATEDthiS ~DaYOf ~2015 for the Deschutes County Board of Commiss·oners. Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: Ta ~YtZ issioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, February 2,2015 Page 14 of 14 U-fES00'" CI} . :z.. IJ.J -\ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING /o Q ,'.-.. ",' N' -<~ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest __~5....:.J£t<..::!~-Jl~:....:.;kt..=c.~fJ~------Date F+ Address __---='-=-!;--=~:.....:<;~!...!...N_W_~V~i~=u.:..!::~~~_=_I)-=--:')J------------- (3,~ J.. {)IJ. 1110 f Phone#s ___~~~4~'-_4~~~O~-~~~Y~5~t_______________ D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided [j"Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes [1 No ! 1 ..c.U-,f.~~.~ 0~(;CI} , :z.. IJ.J -\ o -< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ;".:'·; .. i: REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest _S1_ltt_f_M'JJ_,_________ Date 2 -2-2-0 IS Namey11AT( LI 5 ( q NOL I U Address IZ 50 Nr? WI L C 0>< fNlf Jt1U<---&N N 6 {KL cr77 , 0 I > Phone #s 5~(-5Y-f f -14 I ~ E-mail address 'MATI @ SM tnt «oue ~(li~ LdV'V\ o In Favor D N eutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes ~o ------------------------------------------ ------------------------- --------------------------------- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest __:fP_'_L___________ Date 2<>t~2 ~'2 . \ Name tJd}2~ ----------~~---------------------- Address to ~~ ~19~ /' 17708---~1q( ----~-------~------------=--------------- Phone #s E-mail address D In Favor D Neutral!Undecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes \.x~ESQQ Ct)CI. ..'. ~1 /.ij .-\ a <{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING • ; #~ REQUEST TO SPEAK U Agenda Item of Interest ___1:1_4.____________ Date CtJI(a2 '12 ~ (. Name WLlC~ t'v ~ -----~------~------------------- Address reJ [SqfV t;'17' C{l-Z ~cr ~ ~qqc,.. -------~~~------------------------ Phone #s In Favor [iJ Neutral!Undecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes No January 30, 2015 Commissioner Tony DeBone, Chair Commissioner Tammy Baney Commissioner Alan Unger Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today. I am honored and humbled by the recommendation of Sheriff Blanton that I complete the rest of his term upon his retirement after nearly forty years of law enforcement service. I am proud to serve the citizens of our great county alongside the women and men of the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office. Our office has proudly served our community for close to 100 years. We have been successful because of our partnerships with the citizens, other government agencies, county administration. the Board of County Commissioners and the Central Oregon area Chambers of Commerce. Born and raised in Central Oregon, I am happy to contribute to a wonderful place to live and raise a family. Quality of life is very important and is a key to our livability which keeps productive citizens and businesses here. I have been a part of the Sheriff s Office for twenty years, beginning my career as a reserve deputy sheriff. I have worked in all of the divisions of the office and have gained extensive budget experience with our $40 million budget. Fiscal responsibility while providing quality service is paramount to the Office of Sheriff. In volunteering, I have been connected to our community through the Redmond School District as a board member and to the future of our community as a youth sports coach and Redmond Youth Football Program Director. I have been involved with Pilot Butte Partners as a nonprofit board member with a mission to enhance the popular landmark while working with the Oregon Park and Recreation Department. I understand and believe that our service to our community's livability is due to public safety'S partnerships. I look forward to our ongoing partnership and communication with the Board of County Commissioners to provide continued quality public safety. Our Sheriff is an excellent leader and has solidified our reputation. After a smooth transition, we will continue to do what we do best...the work the citizens expect and deserve. We will continue to be positively influenced by Sheriff Blanton's legacy. I will dutifully serve with the captains and the women and men of your Sheriff's Office while carrying out the Office of Sheriff with conviction. Respectfully, ~, Shane Nelson, Captain Corrections Division Commander Captain Shane Nelson Deschutes County Sherifrs Office Captain Shane Nelson 63333 W . Highway 20 Bend, OR 97701 541-617-3386 I support the values and mission of the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office . "To serve our community by providing superior public safety and service, in an ethical and fiscally responsible manner, while preserving the rights of all individuals", Captain Nelson has been in law enforcement in Oregon EDUCATION • 1993 -Oregon State University, B. S. Speech Communication P'ROFESSIONAL EDUCAT.ION • Department of Public Safety and Standards Training -Executive Certificate • Department of Public Safety and Standards Training, -Middle Management Course • Mark Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University • Graduate of Class #2 Oregon State Sheriff's Association Command CoHege • Graduate of the 2012 Leadership Bend Class AVOCATION • Family outings , skiing , hunting, hiking and fishing for more than 20 years . He was born and raised in Bend and graduated from Mountain View High School in 1988. After graduating from Oregon State University in 1993 he moved back to Bend. Lisa, his wife of 15 years grew up in Maupin. They have four children. As the Corrections Division Commander, he oversees the office's Adult Jail, Work Release Center, and Human Resources. As a member of the Sheriff's Office he serves on the Deschutes County Shared Future Coalition. He is an active member of the community; he serves on the Board of Directors for Pilot Butte Partners and the Board of Directors for the Redmond School District. Captain Nelson is the Director of the Redmond Youth Football Program and he coaches youth soccer and basketball for the Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District. He is a past member of the Redmond Development Commission Safety Stakeholder Committee, as well as, a past member of the Redmond Executive Association . DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CAREER • 1993 -Reserve Deputy • 1994 -Patrol Deputy • 1999 -Corporal' • 2001 -Detective • 2003 -Patrol Sergeant • 2006 -Patrol Lieutenant • 2010 -Administrative Lieutenant • 2012 -Operations Division Commander • 2013 -Corrections Division Commander Department of Public Safety Standards and Training -l190 lim \'illeHwy E Salem, OR 97317-9 1 regon Jo hn A. Ki tzhabe r. MD. Governor (503) 378 -2 100 h ttp ://\\'Ww .dpsst.state.oLu January 9,2015 Captain Shane Nelson Deschutes County Sheriffs Office 63333 W. Highway 20 Bend, OR 97701-1965 RE: Sheriff Eligibility Application / DPSST #29657 Greetings Captain Nelson: The Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) has received your Sheriff Eligibility Application. Under the current requirements, you are eligible to hold the office of Sheriff. You meet the age and experience/educational requirements for sheriff. You are also currently certified in the police discipline and you have sworn or affirmed that you have no criminal convictions that would prohibit you from retaining your certification as a police officer. In the future, should you become an actual candidate for the office of Sheriff, please contact DPSST to have an official letter forwarded to the county clerk informing them of your eligibility to appear on an official ballot. It is important to ensure that you are in compliance with ORS 249 .037, which requires potential candidates for sheriff to submit their application for detennination not sooner than the 250 th day and not later than the 70th day before the date of the primary election. If you have not filed your application within the mandatory timeframe, you will need to re-submit your application when appropriate . If you have any questions , or if there is any way in which I can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me at (503) 378-2083. Sincerely, Debbie Anderson Certification and Compliance Specialist Standards & Certification Unit cc: File James D. Porter ••••••Ori e Be nd, Or. 9 77 01Pl.y••••Email .....______• Ha ving serve d th i rty y ears o f my thirty-t wo year law enforce m e n t ca ree r In Cen t r al O r e gon, w ith both munic i pal police agencies and a she riff's departme nts , at eve ry level of managemen t, In every dI sCIpline of our pro f e sslol', and as resid e n t of De'lchu tes CDunlV since 199 J ,' f e el I ca n cl a Im a degr ee of knowledge h e ld by fe w as to t h e law enforcement needs of the ci tize ns of De sc h utes Co unty The l e gacv of u ccessful Sheriffs i n Central O regon, and for tha t m aner all of O r egon , tell s us the indIVId u al h oldmg t he? office must poS'les'l an ethical base beyond reproa ch , be h onorable m all aspe cts of their personal a nd professional laves , r ecognize the n eel' Slt'( for partne r ships . and e hlblt e ce ptlonal leadelshlp Addltlon3 11~ they must be firmlv rooted and devoted t o th.., ronVl~ unlt\' t f.ey rve , have a broad base f e penence In t he organization t hey lea d , have earned the t f Sf of lhose they serve and value the Im p o rtance of partnerships With their public safety pa,(ners Capla l" Sha ne Ne!son eICempltfies all of these q u al i l le s In the twenty e ar~ I h ave known and worked With Capu/O N e l on he ha s d sp laved the hig hest degree of sound Judgmenl a nd a clea r VISIon of no1 onlv the present needs of a mode rn law e nforcement agency bu a lso the IIISlon of whele a !llodern agency needs to go Into the f uture to sta ..-r espon Ive to the communIty's n eeds One of Ca pt In Nelso'l strongesl tra i ts IS t he volunteer work he does 0' the Cli zens o f Deschutes (oun From per sona l e1<penence I ca ll attest to the fact a Captam 10 a lawen orce m C'nt agen the S 'Z €, 0 t h e Des ;:h .:'5 Co unt Shenffs Off'ce w ill spend belween 50 to 60 o urs per week 0 meet ho:> ne e 5 of hiS gene Be ond t IS la . IIlg p r ofeSSional (omrnl ment Shane rna l(es t e t ime (0 se r v'O' on several Independent b oa r d s throu ghou Ce ntra l O regon , volume _ r as a sp o rts coa ch for Our you th . and ass is ts 'n cha p ty eve n t s t o r aise f Ufl ds for those le ss fo rt unate til our communi In m p r e se nt ca p a ci y I have the o pportunity t o know, work, a d on a regu la r b aS IS spea k wi h nea rt y ever v p ub ll safe ty leader in Cent al O r ego n. ' k n o w from these contacts and from my observ at ions Capt ion Nelso IS well res p ected . trllS ed . a nd Vi ewed as an exceptional leader and partner in our p ro fession Ca ptain Ne l so n has worked hard to p rep are himse lf f or the highest level of leadership in our professio n by o btai n ing practical experience In a ll t h e m an y different disciplines within our profession. He has balanced this practical professi o n a l experience by co m ple t i ng courses of study In the most mode rn and respected of law enforcement executive management train i ng. He has taken on assignmerts with progre<;sively larger3nd more co m p lex operating budgets and personrel management challenges In my experience I can honestly say, I have seen no one as well qualified i n e x per ience , education, and leadership to hold the office of Sheriff a'; Shane Nelson. f strongly endorse the appointment of Captai n Shane Nelson to the office County . Jan u ary 2(j , 2015 Department of State Police 20 35 5 Poe Sholes Dr., S u ile 100 Bend , OR 97701 -7938 (54 1) 388-6213 Fax : (5 41) 388-624 1 January 14,2015 Commissioner (Chair) Tony DeBone Commissioner Tammy Baney Commissioner Alan Unger Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 Please accept this letter of support, for Deschutes County Sheriff Larry Blanton's recommendation Captain Shane Nelson be awarded the position of Sheriff. The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office enjoys the hard earned reputation as one of the most progressive, accountable and professional law enforcement agencies in Oregon . As a police executive that lives and works in Deschutes County, I can offer assurance the professionalism of this agency is due, in large part, to the current leadership. While I congratulate Sheriff Blanton on his well-earned retirement, I was pleased when he announced his recommendation for successor. I have known Captain Shane Nelson personally and professionally for over ten years and support his appointment as the next Deschutes County Sheriff without reservation. Captain Nelson has the experience and credibility to assume this important position, including both from a leadership and management perspective. He is an excellent communicator, inspiring confidence and respect from members within and outside his agency. Captain Nelson would offer a seamless succession of leadership at the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office, his current service in the agency executive staff will be invaluable during the coming months of transition. While Sheriff Blanton's recommendation for Captain Nelson to assume this position speaks volumes, I hope this letter also offers the intended support from the Oregon State Police . Thank you for taking the time to read this letter of support, I would be happy to answer any questions or offer similar support in a public forum. ;(af4t Travis Hampton, Major Oregon State Police Field Operations Commander (541) 633-2237 travis.hampton@state.or .us John Hummel District Attorney 1164 NW Bond Street • Bend, Oregon 97701 (541] 388-6520. Fax: (541] 33G4691 Grand Jury Fax: (541] 33G4698 www.dcda .us January 16,2015 Dear Deschutes County Commissioners: I am writing to strongly recommend that Captain Shane Nelson be appointed Deschutes County Sheriff when Sheriff Larry Blanton retires. I cannot imagine a better choice . I have known Captain Nelson on a professional basis for approximately twenty years. In that time, he has always impressed me as a very bright and dedicated individual with the ability to use common sense in the course of his duties. I know that other members of my office , as well as members of the Judicial Department, share those sentiments. What impresses me the most about Captain Nelson is his always positive attitude and his infectious enthusiasm for the important work of the Deschutes County Sheriffs Office. He is a leader in the Sheriffs Office who has always demonstrated the very highest degree of professionalism and integrity. In my opinion, those qualities are essential for the office of Sheriff. You will find no one who better exemplifies those qualities than Shane Nelson. Captain Nelson's skills working with others, both inside and outside of the Sheriffs Office, are extraordinary. I have had numerous experiences with him, whether dealing with the District Attorney's Office, the courts or in community groups, in which he has shown a remarkable ability to work through challenges that may arise while maintaining an even keel and a great sense of humor. I have had only good experiences with Captain Nelson since I have known him, and I firmly believe that he will be an excellent Sheriff. ~~~ Stephen H. Gunnels Chief Deputy District Attorney P: 5 41.9 2 3.54 37 F: S 41 .923.5142 Redme nd 145 SE Sa lmon Ave I Re dmond , OR 9 77 56 DISTRICT vvw w.r e dmond. k 12.o r. us January 20, 2015 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes Services Building 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR. 9770 I RE: Support Nelson fOf Deschutes County Sheriff Board of County Commissioners, It is an honor and pleasure to write a letter of support for Captain L. Shane Nelson for the position of Deschutes County Sheriff. I have known Captain Nelson for more than three years , first as a parent involved in the Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District, and then as a colleague after he was appointed to the Redmond School Board. Shane was sworn in on January 8, 2014, and is serving through June 30, 2015. Shane's depth of public service and leadership experience has been a tremendous asset to the school district and to the Redmond community. Shane has strong interpersonal skills, which is exhibited through his reputation as a great listener, and demonstrates respect for others' declarations and opinions. His oral and written communication skills are excellent. His fiscal management experience with the Sheriff's Office and involvement with other volunteer boards has provided him with the knowledge and understanding of school finance, both on local and statewide levels. I strongly believe that his vested interest in the children of our community has made us more effective as a school board. From my conversations with Shane on a personal level, I have found him to be kindhearted and he has strong family values . His commitment and dedication to Lisa and their four children proves to me that he will follow through on any commitment he is passionate about. 1 strongly recommend your consideration of Captain L. Shane Nelson to lead the Deschutes County Sheriff's Department. I believe there is no one who will outperform, be more fair, consistent, or unwavering in the approach of his leadership position , and will always keep the citizens of Deschutes County foremost in any course of action. Sincerely, AJ . Losoya Chairman Redmond School Board Ron Brown 63333 Highway 20W Bend, OR 97701 January 19,2015 Alan Unger, Tammy Baney, and Tony DeBone Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Bend, OR 97701 Dear Alan Unger, Tammy Baney, and Tony DeBone: My name is Ron Brown. I am the current president for the Deschutes County Sheriffs Employee Association. I am writing this letter in support of Captain Shane Nelson's appointment to Sheriff for Deschutes County. I have personally worked under the supervision of Captain Nelson as Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain. Captain Nelson is knowledgeable and professional. I have worked with Captain Nelson in my capacity as president on numerous occasions with issues concerning association members. Captain Nelson works hard to resolve issues in a manner that is fair and in accordance with our agency's policies and procedures. He understands the human element of our business. I am confident that Captain Nelson will continue to be fiscally responsible and morally professional as Sheriff for Deschutes County. Sincerely, Ron Brown DCSEA President QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING OPENING PROCESS: 1. CHAIR: "'rhis is the time and place set for hearing on 247-14-000401-MC and 4S4-A." 2. CHAIR to COD staff: "Staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed." 3. COD STAFF informs the audience as follows: • The hearings body -the Board of County Commissioners, in this case -will take testimony and receive written evidence concerning the appeal of 247-14-000401 Me. The address of the property is 71120 Holmes Road, Sisters. • The applicant is requesting approval of a modification of conditions to change the wildlife management plan approved for the subject property under County File Nos. CU-00-6S and MA-01-9. • All testimony shall be directed to the hearings body • At the conclusion of this hearing the hearings body will deliberate towards a decision or continue the hearing or deliberations to a date and time certain • The hearing will proceed as follows: o staff will provide a brief report o the applicant will present its testimony and evidence o the opponent (and/or proponent) will present its testimony and evidence o any other interested persons will then present testimony or evidence o the applicant, as the party bearing the burden of proof, will then be afforded an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony o if requested by the hearings body, staff will provide closing comments 4. COD STAFF: "A full written version of the hearing procedures is available at the table at the side of the room." S. COD STAFF: "Commissioners must disclose any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations, biases, or conflicts of interest. Does any Commissioner have anything to disclose and, if so, please state the nature of same and whether you can proceed?" 6. BOARD: The hearings body discloses conflicts or ex-parte contacts and states whether they are withdrawing from the hearing or whether they intend to continue with the hearing. 7. COD STAFF: "Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner (member of the hearings body) based on ex-parte contacts, biases, or conflicts?" 8. CHAIR: open the hearing and direct staff to proceed with brief staff report. The Board’s decision on this application will be based upon the record before the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer’s decision, the Staff Report and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. 1.Staff will provide a brief report. 2.The applicant will present its testimony and evidence. 3.Opponents and proponents will testify and present evidence. 4.Other interested persons will then present testimony or evidence. 5.The applicant presents rebuttal testimony. 6.Staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. 1 HEARING PROCEDURE BOCC February 2, 2015 Staff Report Background Subject Property Staff Decision Analysis and Issues Alternative Courses Action Questions Background Prior owner received approval for a farm related dwelling in the EFU and WA zones. Dwelling over 300 feet from a road required a wildlife management plan (WMP) Approved 2001 WMP included prohibitions and required vegetative enhancements to improve deer habitat Current owner would like to comply with WMP Required WMP actions are unclear as written ODFW and owner’s biologist confirm that a new WMP would result in better deer habitat enhancement Background New WMP was developed in coordination with ODFW and applicant’s biologist. Focuses on forage enhancement Staff issued administrative approval of the modification Converts WMP into six conditions of approval Wholly removes the obligations of the 2001 WMP Landwatch appeals Administrative decision has informational gaps Figures showing habitat enhancement areas were not provided Does not deal with forage competition between livestock and deer Decision and Key Issues The WMP must comply with 18.88.060(B)(1) Habitat values (i.e., browse, forage, cover, access to water) and migration corridors are afforded equal or greater protection through a different development pattern; What additional documentation, if any, is required at this time? How can forage competition be controlled? ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF BOARD ACTION •After conducting the public hearing and receiving testimony, the Board’s options include the following: •Continue the public hearing to a date and time certain: –To the next BOCC hearing/meeting date or a subsequent BOCC hearing/meeting date. •Close the oral record and keep the written record open to a date and time certain. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF BOARD ACTION •Close the public hearing (oral and written records), and: –Begin deliberations, or –Direct staff to schedule time on a future agenda to conduct deliberations, or –Make a decision on the appeal. •direct Staff to draft findings. Jan. 14~ 2014 We are submitting this on behalf of Captain Shane Nelson. We were both born and raised in Bend.. We have remained here all of our 60 years. We have had the pleasure of knowing Shane for many years. We have the utmost respect for him. Several years ago he was asked by Sheriff Larry Blanton,. to help our neigbbors~ and USl' with a matter that was going on in the area we live. He bandied it well, so tbat everyone was satisfied. He bas foUowed up witb us many tbnes since then. We have witnessed Shane as a coach for youth basketbaU. We admire the way be treats the kids he is eoacbiDg.. We know that Shane is being eonsidered to f"misb out the term tbat Sheriff Blanton will be leaving this slIJIUDer. We strongly support Shane. The duties of Sherifi'our plentifuL Not only wiD the Sheriff need to be knowledgeable, he needs to show leadership, compassion, along with being penonable. SheritT Blanton is all of that, and we believe he has prepared Shane to foUow in those footsteps. Thank you for the opportunity to show our support for Shane. Larry D. Wonser General Manager Bigfoot Beverages (employed for 38 years) MoUyWonser Retired from Bend Lapine Schools 1013 (26 years) .'i I i! I I I January 30, 2015 Deschutes County Community Development Department I 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 ATTN: Will Groves I f{e: Shepherd Wildlife Management Plan ModificationI '"" File No. 247-14-000401-MC I Dear Mr. Groves:I This letter serves as my response to the issues raised by Central Oregon Landwatch (Landwatch) in their appeal of the staff's approval of my application for modification of the original Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) on my property located at 71120 Holmes Road in Deschutes County. Please enter this letter into the record. Landwatch raises five issues in their appeal. I will respond to each issue in order: 1. Landwatch Questions whether condition #3 of the staff approved modified WMP requires something more or less than what is required under the current WMP. Condition #3 requires me to maintain a vegetative buffer around the existing house to provide visual screening and forage opportunities for deer. The buffer must consist of various trees, including Junipers and Aspen, as well as shrubs, garden, and lawn, and to replace any vegetation in-kind should it die. The existing WMP, approved as part ofthe Woods application (CU-00-65), called for a buffer zone of mixed trees including Aspens, Birch, Ponderosa Pine, Maples and Dogwoods, along with middle sized shrubs. In addition, the WMP called for planting a plot of pine trees around 300 feet from the dwelling. To date, we have planted a large lawn to provide forage for wildlife, including wintering deer, approximately 50 Aspens, and 23 Ponderosa Pine trees, all within 300 feet of the dwelling. In addition, we have planted a large flowered area (approximately 60' x100'), along with native grasses on approximately 1.6 acres. Condition #3 is an improvement on the existing WMP in that it not only requires us to create a buffer, but also to maintain it, and replace dead vegetation with like-kind vegetation. The existing WMP does not contain this requirement, meaning the modified WMP creates an additional burden upon us. 2. landwatch asserts that the modified WMP should specify (in Condition #4) the location of the property upon which juniper shall be thinned, rather than deferring that decision until 30 days after the final decision on the application. Landwatch further claims that the modified WMP will not preserve the cover necessary for deer. Finally, Landwatch asserts that the terms "scab rock flats" and "rock scrabble areas" are undefined and so it is unclear to know where they are located and how many acres have already been thinned under the existing WMP. The existing WMP calls for "cutting the many small juniper trees to promote the natural growth of sage brush, bitter brush, and bunch grasses." The existing WMP prohibits general thinning of juniper, and only allows removal of juniper less than 10 years old. To date, we have removed young juniper from approximately 10 acres of our property, as shown on the attached map. We have also planted native grasses, including sage brush, lupen, meadow salsify and others on approximately 6000 square feet. However, after meeting onsite with our biologist, Ray Romero, and with Corey Heath, Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist for ODFW, it was determined that wildlife would better benefit by removing a greater number of junipers from a larger portion of the property, leaving the largest junipers in each location for cover, piling the downed junipers into brush pile for rodent and bird habitat, and planting each area with native vegetation to provide additional forage for deer and other wildlife. As per ODFW's recommendation, this is a great improvement. The existing WMP requires thinning of juniper trees, but does not require replanting the thinned areas with native vegetation, and contains no requirement on the amount of acreage to be thinned and no requirement that the removed junipers be hand piled into brush piles for the benefit of smaller wildlife. The modified WMP contains those requirements, and specifies that at least 25 acres of our property be thinned and replanted. Our plant selection includes, but is not limited to: bitterbrush, Idaho Fescue, Bluebunch wheatgrass, and lupine. (See page 5 of attached Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board grant schedule). Again, as per ODFW's recommendation, this is a great improvement. Furthermore, the existing WMP did not require that we obtain approval from either the County or ODFW before removing juniper. The modified WMP contains a requirement that we provide the County with a map showing the areas which will be thinned, with each area at least 1 acre in size, and that we obtain ODFW approval prior to thinning. These requirements shall be completed no later than June 15, 2015. Again, as per ODFW's recommendation, this is a great 1 improvement.J 1 I i l The requirements ofthe modified WMP are a vast improvement over the eXisting WMP. Under the existing WMP, we are only required to remove some small juniper. How much and in what location is completely up to us. Under the modified WMP, we are required to thin at least 25 acres of small juniper in areas which must be approved by both the County and ODFW, and which we must complete within a short period after approval of the application. In addition, we are required to replant those areas with native grasses, and create brush piles for smaller wildlife. Finally, we are required to schedule a site visit with the County and ODFW to ensure that we have satisfied the thinning and reseeding requirements. The result is a much more specific and comprehensive set of requirements that eliminate the ambiguity of the existing WMP and add additional benefits for wildlife. Although the modified WMP does not require us to immediately specify the locations of areas which we propose to thin, attached is a map showing the areas we will initially propose, which are the areas which we walked with Corey Heath and Ray Romero during their site visit to our property. According to the modified WMP, before final approval, the specific scab rock areas to be rehabilitated must be approved by ODFW. 3. landwatch argues that Conditions #7 and #8 of the modified WMP, which require us to reseed the areas where we have thinned juniper with native vegetation, do not require that the reseeding has "taken hold" and provided the additional forage. Conditions #7 and #8 of the modified WMP require us to reseed thinned areas by June 15, 2017, and request a site visit by the County and ODFW to ensure that the reseeding was completed. In addition, if ODFW does not believe the reseeding was successful, they can require additional application of seed. Given that the existing WMP does not require any reseeding of thinned areas at all, these conditions are an improvement over the existing WMP. They might not be as great as landwatch wants, but they are certainly an improvement, particularly since the final call on whether the reseeding has been successful lies with the ODFW. In addition, we have been working with Jan Roofener of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, who has given up preliminary approval of a small grant application for our property, including $1,000 for seeds and plants for the areas to be reseeded. A copy of the grant schedulel is attached (see page 5). We have also purchased 3.5 acres of water rights to create pasture and for additional areas of our lawn, both of which would be available to deer. 4. landwatch claims that the existing WMP requires limitations on livestock grazing. The condition of the existing WMP which landwatch refers to is Condition #6, in which the applicant (Woods) agreed to take the cattle to "another grazing area" on the property during the fall and winter months. Unfortunately, there is no description of which "grazing area" the cattle would occupy during the remainder of the year, nor which "grazing area" the cattle would be moved to by Woods. This is especially difficult when considering the map which the applicant (Woods) submitted to the County, and which was incorporated by the County in the approval of Woods , application. That map (a copy of which is attached) shows that all of the property is labeled as "grazing area". Thus, Condition #6 is both exceedingly ambiguous and ineffective, as it does not appear to require Woods (or us) to do anything. Therefore~ we have built a barbed wire feed lot pen of approximately ~acre near the barn where the cattle will be secured and fed during winter months (see attached map). Furthermore, we were concerned that the original plan could allow the property to be overgrazed. Therefore, we are willing to limit the duration of grazing on areas above the rim rock to ensure that those areas are not overgrazed. We propose a limitation on cattle grazing above the rim rock of no more than 4 weeks during each year, to occur during summer months when it will not interfere with the deer winter range use. The cattle will be secured for the majority of the summer months to the new pasture area (approximately 10 acres) below the rim rock on the east border of our property (see map). Using this area for grazing will protect the remaining 206 acres from overgrazing. including the areas we propose to reseed, should they be accepted by ODFW and the County. Since the existing plan does not require this protection, it is another improvement. In addition, the existing WMP indicates that Woods will graze at least 2S cattle on the subject property. We plan to only graze approximately 10 cattle on the subject property, to balance the county requirement that we farm the property with the county requirement that we protect wildlife. For protection of wildlife, this is an improvement over the existing WMP. 5. Finally, landwatch claims that the modified WMP must contain a Condition limiting vehicular use on the property. The existing WMP does provide that there will be little road usage on the subject property, but does not tie that into the benefit to wildlife. Moreover, the existing WMP does not require that there be little road usage (instead, there is simply a statement by the applicant (Woods) that that will be the case), and does not attempt to define what road usage is considered "little". Contrary to what landwatch claims, there is nothing in the existing WMP which imposes any requirement that human activities will be limited. By contrast, if somehow the County could infer standards from the existing WMP as to what constitutes "little" road usage, the modified WMP will ensure that the road usage will meet that standard. The existing WMP calls for cattle to use the entire property. This will result in road usage on existing roads in the property as part of the cattle operation. By contrast, as discussed above, we will severely limit grazing above the rimrock. Rather, the vast majority of our cattle operation will occur below the rimrock and in the barn area adjacent to our dwelling fbut not within the area for our proposed private park). Thus, except for the Saturday afternoons/evenings during the summer (i.e. not during the fall/winter/early spring when the mule deer winter range is critical) when we hope to use a small portion of our property as a private park, there will be less road usage than under the existing WMP. I believe this addresses each of the appeal concerns raised by landwatch, and hope that the Board upholds the staff decision and rejects the landwatch appeal. .. Sincerely, . " .. -1 ~<·:W< iJr\.!.)..' , -l L. L/ "\:', \ '\ ~hepherdJohn OWE Application Processing Information (to be SMALL GRANT completed by the Small Grant Team Contact) Application #: 19-14-005PROGRAM Date Received: APPUCATION Date Acted On: Recommended Denied2013-2015 (for applications to be submitted SGT Contact qfter July 1, 2014) Signature: ___________ I. GENERAL INFORMATION OWEB Funds Requested $8160 Total Project Cost $ 11277 Round 10 neare sl dollar Round 10 nearesl dollar Name of Project (five words or fewer) Shepherd Erosion Reduction Project Project Location (if more than one, include location/landowner information on each map.) This project occurs at (check one): ~ A single site __ Multiple sites Deschutes River Deschutes T14S, R IIE, Sec 10 Walershed(s) County or counlies Township, Range. Seclion(s) (e.g., TIN, R5E, S12) 17070301 Longitude, Lolitude (e.g., -123.789, 45.613) Subbasin{s) -Please note the IO-digit hydrological unit code, (Requiredfor f ederal/S late reporting) previously 5'h Field HUC River or Creek Name (if applicable) River Mile (if applicable) 1. Have you previously submitted an application to OWEB, either through the regular or small grant program, for this project, or one similar to it on the same property? Yes Grant #__ ~ No lfyes, explain __ 2. Does this application propose a grant for a property in which OWEB previously invested funds for purchase of fee title or a conservation easement; or is OWEB currently considering an acquisition grant for this property? Yes Grant#__ ~ No If yes, explain __ II. CONT ACT INFORMATION Applicant Org.: Deschutes Soil & Water Conservation I Contact: Tammy Harty District Mailing Address: 625 SE Salmon Ave., Redmond, OR J Zip : 97756 Phone : 541-815-0203 I Email: tammyharty@msn.com Landowner(s): John Shepherd Landowner Address: 71120 Holmes Road, Sisters, Oregon I Zip: 97759 Phone: 541. J Email: Project Manager for the Grantee: Jan Roofener Project Manager Address: 625 SE Salmon Ave., Redmond , OR I Zip: 97756 Phone: 541-815-8377 I Email: janroofener@bendbroadband.com Fiscal Agent Org. : Deschutes SWCD I Contact: Tammy Harty Fiscal Agent Address: 625 SE Salmon Ave., Redmond, OR I Zip: 97756 Phone: 541-923-2204 I Email: tammyharty@msn.com Technical Contact: Jan Roofener Phone : 541-815-8377 I Email: janroofener@bendbroadband.com In. PROJECT INFORMATION 201 3 -2015 Small Grant Application, Revised MAY 2014 Priority Watershed Concern: the project wiD address-Check One Only: Instream Process & Function Riparian Process & Function __ Urban Impact Reduction Wetland Process & Function __ Road Impact Reduction xx Upland Process & Function __ Fish Passage __ Water Quantity & Quality/ Irrigation Efficiency Small Grant Team Priority Project Type(s) addressed by the project (see application instructions): Vegetation management. upland process and function. erosion and invasive species management, wildlife habitat restoration I-a. Is the project consistent with the local watershed assessment or action plan? ~ Yes Name primary assessment/plan Upper Deschutes Assessment and Action Plan No __NtA-The watershed does not yet have an assessment or action plan I-b. Is the project consistent with the local Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan? ~ Yes No I-c. Is the project consistent with any developed plan for the property (e.g., local conservation or stewardship plans, etc.)? ~ Yes No If yes, name the planes): ODFWtDeschutes County Wildlife Habitat Plan 2. Describe the current watershed PROBLEM(s) you are seeking to address. The Deschutes River is water quality limited on DEQ's 303d list for temperature and other parameters of toxic substances that would limit beneficial use of summer steelhead fish. Juniper encroachment due to lack of wildfire in Central Oregon is a significant problem. The phase II juniper stand is estimated at 200 trees to the acre and dominates the plant community on this site. Soil organic matter has declined and raindrops if not intercepted by the juniper crown impact the ground promoting physical crusting, so precipitation does not infiltrate the soil. This site is best described as mid-late phase II; a period of transition when biotic and, in many cases abiotic conditions worsen and the focus of treatment options changes from prevention to restoration and repair. The landowner is very interested in planting native vegetation such as bitterbrush and bunch grass seeding per recommendations from Oregon Department of Forestery. At this time no noxious weeds were observed. and the landowner successfully cleared juniper on I 0+ acres of his 216 acre property. 3. Describe the SOLUTION(s) you are proposing to address the current problem(s). attach a site map, color photo(s), and (if applicable) preliminary project drawings or designs The project proposes to cut 30 acres of stage II juniper, stack the large trees in piles and burn or haul off for ftrewood: although the smaller limbs and litter from the trees should be left as ground cover and shade protection for the soil to encourage the native plant species to return. Results from this project are: soil will become permeable, young Juniper trees will be eliminated, reduced wiltire fuels. restore the grassland ecological site for water quality and wildlife habitat. This OWES Small Grant project is included in the plan to manage the natural resources in a partner ship with Oregon Department of Wildlife, Deschutes Co SWCD, Deschutes County Planning and the landowner. Attached; recent plan for wildlife habitat submitted to Deschutes Co Planning for this property. 2013-2015 Small Grant Application, Revised MAY 2014 2 I Project Budget (Word)-Itemize projected costs for each of the following "Expense Categories" that apply to your project. A minimum of25% match---cost share-in-kindlcash (column 4) is required. See application instructions and additional team conditions for further guidance. PLEASE NOTE: Budgets may be submitted in either Word or Excel (form on website) formats. http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/GRANTS/smgrant forms.shtml F'Il'ID tb t, rouoded t tdoar,II IJlease d000t'IDC U eamouots 0 tbe oeares I d e ceo ts. Cost Sbare Expense Category No. of Unit In-Kind! OWEB Description-what will be I11J!.chased or done Units Cost Casb Funds and who willll.rovide the itemlllHfprm the work (Match) SALARIES, WAGES AND BENEFITS (Includes time devoted to tbis project only by applicant elDployees for wbolD payroU taxes are paid) Deschutes SWCD 8hrs $30 $240 $ Reconnaissance, photos and research Technician Deschutes SWCD Tech 16 hrs $0 $0 $480 Project process, site visits for progress reports SUBTOTAL (l) $0 CONTRACTED SERVICES (Work crews, volunteer labor, establisbin2 plaD~equip.uent operation, etc ) Mechanical Brush 30 $1 86/ac $0 $5580 Mechanical Large Woody Brush Management, Treatment acres Medium Infestation Hand tools brush treatment 30 $781ac $2340 $0 Leave small piles for bird nesting, lopping small acres trees . Broadcast seeding x2 40 $12 480 Hand seed using a harrow or rake and broadcast hours seed SUBTOTAL (2) $0 $0 i MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES (Seed fencing, pi ~gravel, logs, plaots, etc) I Native Seed Lump $0 $0 $1000 Seed mix to include bitterbrush, Idaho Fescue, Sum B1uebunch wheatgrass, and lupine seed in late fall or early spring (non toxic to livestock) ! SUBTOTAL (3) $0 $0 TRAVEL (For current rates go to: bttp:l!www.oregon.gov/OWEB/PageslforlDs linked.aspx# ForlDs and Guidance used for all EraDts re£ardless of fundina date-Travel Rates • Site visits by SWCD l04mi $.55 $57 $0 4 site visits for progress reporting $ $0 $0 SUBTOTAL (4) $0 $0 OTIlER (Land use sipature costs, projeet perlDit eosts, slDall e41lIiplDent repair, colDlDercial e41uiplDent rental) Land Use Review by Co 1 $50 $0 $50 requirement $ $0 $0 SUBTOTAL (5) $0 So PROJECT SUBTOTAL (Add Subtotals 1-5) $0 $0 GRANT ADMlN. Not to exceed 15% of Projeet Subtotal. COlDpate by IDUltiplyiDg by 0.15 or less. See tile January 2014 Budget Categories neflDiPons at httD:"www.or~on.gov/OWEB/forlDs/2014-01bud&et cat~oa defs.odf for eligible costs. Indicate which billing lDethod will be used for this Eraot by elleekiq one appropriate box. vv ,.I:"""" N'st billing 20hrs $45 $0 $850 File maintenance for reporting purposes to OWEB U direct cost allocation $ ! $0 $0 D indirect costs (if checked, $ $0 $0 attach copy of Federal Indirect Cost Negotiation Agreement) POST-GRANT YEAR-2 STATUSIPOST IMPLEMENTATION $0 $200 (Not to exceed $200) REPORT (optional) ~PLANT ESTABLISHMENT(optional) $0 (Not to exceed $1,000) PROJECT TOTALS $3117 $8160 (Not to exceed $10,000 in OWEB funds) 2013-20ts Small Grant Application, Revised MAY 2014 5 ~"':> O~~ r !!;, \A ~ ""c,..!> ~\ c. r'D, ~f f' I Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2015 Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject ofa public hearing will NOT be included in the official record ofthat hearing. 3. DISCUSSION of Sheriffs Office Transition-SheriffLarry Blanton and Staff 4. PUBLIC HEARING on a Modification of a Conditions Application to Change the Wildlife Management Plan Approved for the Subject Property (File #CU 00-65 and MA-O 1-9, Shepherd) -Will Groves, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing and take testimony; ifappropriate, then deliberate and provide guidance to staffregarding a decision. CONSENT AGENDA 5. Board Signature of Order No. 2015-007, Authorizing the Disposal of Two Surplus Vehicles (Sheriff' s Office) 6. Board Signature of Order No. 2015-002, Initiating the Vacation of a Right-of Way Located offWarrin Road (near Fryrear Road) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 1 of6 7. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2015-002, Vacating a Right-of-Way Located offWarrin Road (near Fryrear Road) 8. Board Signature of Document No. 2015-086, an Acceptance Deed for a Right of-Way Located offWarrin Road (near Fryrear Road) 9. Board Signature of Letters Reappointing Cheryl Davidson and David Bishop to the Deschutes County Fair Board, through December 31, 2017 10. Approval of Economic Development Discretionary Grant Awards: Center for Economic Research & Forecasting (CERF) -$1,500 Neighborlmpact -$1,500 Network of Volunteer Administrators (NOVA) -$1,500 OSU/Deschutes County Extension -$1,500 Central Oregon Council on Aging (COCOA) -$1,200 Adventist Community Services -$1,000 Deschutes County Coalition for Human Dignity -$1,200 Saving Grace -$1,200 11. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meeting of January 26 and 28, 2015 . Work Session of January 26, 2015 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extensionl4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 14. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 2 of6 15. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA 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 possible, please call (541) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. _.._------------- 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; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, February 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Wednesday, February 4 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) 6:00p.m. Sisters School Board Meeting Tuesday, February 10 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update with Lobbyist and Legislators (Conference Call) 6:30p.m. Joint Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond City Hall Wednesday, February 11 8:00 -5:00 Annual Board Goal Setting Retreat -Health Building Thursday, February 12 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with the Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, February 2,2015 Page 3 of6 Monday, February 16 Most County offices will be closed to observe Presidents' Day. Tuesday, February 17 10:00 a.m. 911 Executive Board Meeting, at 911 Monday, February 23 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, February 24 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update with Lobbyist and Legislators (Conference Call) Wednesday, February 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, March 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 3 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, March 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 11 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, February 2,2015 Page 4 of6 Monday, March 16 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 17 10:00 a.m. 911 Executive Board Meeting, at 911 Monday, March 23 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, March 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, March 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, April 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Tuesday, April 7 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 5 of6 Wednesday, April 8 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, April 20 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, April 20 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, April 21 10:00 a.m. 911 Executive Board Meeting, at 911 Wednesday, April 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, April 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, Apri127 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) 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 possible, please call (541) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnic.baker@deschutes.org. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, February 2, 2015 Page 6 of6