Thank you for your patience. We have a little slow stroll this morning. Happy
Wednesday. I'd like to welcome you to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners meeting for June
14th. We please join us with the Pledge of Allegiance.
I
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, and to the soul, the liberty and justice for all.
Okay, we have a number of items on our agenda today, and if you have want to approach the
board on any item that is on the agenda, I do need one of these cards there located
by the door to be filled out, and I have a number of you who are interested in marijuana
regulations and code enforcement, and we will be taking that up during the work plan item
on our agenda, and then I do have an individual, Mr. Duel, who is interested in the outdoor
mass gathering.
Next on our agenda is citizen input.
If anyone would like to approach the board on any item that is not on the agenda,
Most items are on today's agenda, but if there happens to be one that we don't have and you would like to approach the board on that, I'd like to open that the floor to you now.
Okay. Seeing none, we will go on to the consent agenda and I understand we have a couple of adjustments.
I'd like to move to item number two to the action item.
I just like to have kind of a review of the sale of real property and just to update on that.
Okay.
And then the approval of the number item six, I'd like to bring back to another meeting
on the approval of minutes for that day.
Excellent.
Okay.
Do we have?
I'll support that.
Okay.
Excellent.
So is that a motion to?
Yeah, I move to do those.
Yeah.
Number two to the action item, move pull six from today's agenda for another meeting.
And I'll second that efficiently.
Okay.
So the consent agenda minus item two and six.
Yes.
Commissioner Henderson.
Yes.
Commissioner Nabone.
Yes.
And Chair votes yes.
So item number two, consideration of signature of order number 2017-015 confirming and approving
sale of real property.
Mr. Lewis, come on down.
Good morning, commissioners.
Just a brief background on this item.
As required by statute, we conducted our surplus property auction on May 19th by
virtue of board order that approved that auction going forward.
Post auction, we need to come back to you for approval and closure of that sale.
So that's what's before you today.
There were 20 properties that sold at the auction for a total of $687,550 of that amount.
The majority goes back to the taxing districts.
There's only some that's left out to pay for administrative costs or costs to hold
that property and to manage that property.
Like I said, the remainder goes back to the tax and district.
So at this point, we're here to seek your approval and closure of that sale.
Excellent.
Please.
I just had a couple of questions because we'd gone through the properties and approved
which ones we're going to be sold.
I was kind of curious on how you thought the – several things you can just kind
of answer at once.
One, how you thought the sale went.
I was curious how many people went to it.
But I noticed quite a few of them seem to go kind of at their minimum bid, which kind
of surprised me.
The minimum bid is quite a bit below its ass.
I know a lot of these are maybe not developable lots, so just some comments on that.
And then I noticed there was several that were removed or there was a couple that had
no bid.
So I just wondered what was going on there.
Just kind of an update on those things.
Yeah.
The auction was very well attended.
We had both of these rooms with the curtain open back there that were completely full,
So we have about 100 people in attendance, but about 50 people that were registered to
bid.
Most people come and they are interested in a specific property as close to them, it's
next door to them, or they see it as an investment property.
Originally, you're correct, we had 25 properties that were, that we established for the auction.
Three of those properties were pooled.
One of those was one that we are in the process, let me back up a second, is that
But we have to look at these properties back in December so that we can bring them to you
with enough time to do the public noticing prior to the auction.
During that time, one of the properties we were cleaning up, we intended to have it all
cleaned up, but during our work crew going out there they found hazardous waste.
There was a lot of needles and the like on that property, so we have to have a hazardous
waste crew.
So we were not going to have that done in time for the auction, so we pulled
that from the auction.
Two others in our dial system, there was an incorrect address that was associated with
that, so when we did the first order and we publicized this, there was an incorrect information
in there.
So we had to pull that because it was not correctly identified, so legally we had to pull that.
So those were the three that were pulled.
The two that did not sell, one of them is a property with an older manufactured
We were, the minimum bid on that was $100,800, and that may have just been a little bit out of line in its location as to what people wanted to pay.
And the other was a lower price property, just nobody was interested in that property.
The remainder, many of them sell for right around the minimum bid that's established.
The minimum bid is established by virtue of a broker's price opinion.
If we have an exceptional property, we'll get an appraisal on it, but we use a broker's
price opinion.
And they look at that as if they were listing the property, what would they list it for?
And then historically, the county has backed off to 80% of that broker's price opinion
as the minimum bid.
And typically, these will sell right about the minimum bid or they will go up to just
about what that broker's price opinion is, which is the market value.
In those sales, though, when you look at that minimum bid amount, that minimum bid covers the taxes that were due on the property.
So when we forfeited taxes by virtue of getting these properties back, these minimum bids cover those taxes and any penalties.
So we're actually making money.
But when I say making money, again, you have to remember that we do not.
It's not revenue that comes to the county for general fund.
It just goes back to the taxing districts to make up for what they've lost and delinquency
on these properties.
In terms of, you said about 50 people bid, but on these individual lots, I noticed there
are close to minimum where you're seeing just a couple people bidding on those, that
there are people that have to know that neighborhood or know that spot.
Yes.
It's usually somebody that's in that area, or you'll get a couple people in that
that area that went a bit on those properties.
And many of these lower-priced properties
were in that area of the county between Sun River
and Lapine, where we have a prevalence of high groundwater
and there is no possibility to get an onsite sanitary system.
So hence, the price is low.
That is pretty comparable with private properties
that you see in that area as well.
The price is low because of the inability to develop.
Any other surprises or thoughts on?
Well, I mean the one outstanding property was the one that we had up on Trenton Avenue on the west side of Bend here.
It's an older home built in 1959-60. It's sold for $395,000.
And so effectively the home on there was a tear down.
when you look at the home, especially after the windstorm and the tree fell on the home.
So it was an investment property for redevelopment
and it went for substantially more than what we expected.
But again, all that money goes back to the call for the tax.
Yep.
It's great to get it back on the books.
Thank you.
Excellent.
Thank you.
So I would welcome a motion for that particular item if you feel ready.
I move approval confirming and approving the sale of real property order number 2017, day
015.
Second.
Okay.
For the discussion, Commissioner Henderson.
Yes.
Commissioner DeBone.
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
All right.
Moving on to item nine, a reading of a proclamation declaring June 15, 2017 as elder abuse awareness
day.
And do we have Heather with us today?
Oh, gosh, the whole team. Come on over. All right, yes, please. Thank you.
Hello, nice to see you again.
I didn't know if you're kind of hiding in there. Hello.
So please introduce yourselves for the record and I'll turn it over to you.
My name is Danny Kup. I'm an investigator with Adult Protective Services.
I'm Hannah Miller. I screen for Adult Protective Services.
Great. I am Patty Thompson. I'm an investigator.
Curtis Taylor, an investigator.
Excellent. Okay. Who's leading us off?
All of us.
Okay, great. So tell us about, just in brief, the work that you do and why this is an important thing for us to be considering today.
I can start off briefly with what we kind of do. So there's six of us investigators. We work a pretty wide range.
Jefferson, Deschutes, Crick County, and then we also work some of the rural areas that connect
with Flosco, Wheeler, Lake County, Klamath County that are a little bit further out of
reach from other offices.
We do community-based elder and disabled individual investigations in the community
as well as all state-regulated care facilities.
So that's kind of briefly what we do.
What does it matter to your clients?
What is it?
I'm throwing you a softball, so tell me,
or even an example of what a day is like for you
and the importance of the work.
So we investigate allegations of physical abuse,
self-neglect, neglect, sexual abuse,
financial exploitation.
We go out into the community, we usually go out on a screening call that's been an allegation
in a certain household or in a facility and we step into the investigation asking questions
of the victim, talking to the perpetrator, assessing whether or not this is something
that rises to the level that should be pushed forward into a criminal case.
We work closely with Deschews County, the DA's office, and also with law enforcement
to make sure that the perpetrator and the victim are either made whole or answered for
their allegation.
So it's really important.
We average about 115 calls a month, about 65 of those get screened in.
So, we stay pretty busy just making sure that the victims know that we're there for them
and we continue to have an open kind of dialogue with them even once the investigation is over
just in case there's something that continues to come up.
I bet that's empowering.
Yeah.
Great.
We have comments.
We can dive right in.
Thank you for your service.
Thank you.
I'll go ahead.
Okay.
I'll read the proclamation.
So before the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes County, this is a proclamation declaring June 15, 2017 as Elder Abuse Awareness Day.
Thousands, whereas thousands of vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities are victimized every year by financial exploitation, physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect.
And whereas elder abuse happens to men and women of all income levels, all cultural and ethnic backgrounds, whether they are in good health or incapacitated in some way, in poor neighborhoods, and in suburbia.
And whereas these incidents of abuse and neglect take place in the home and in facilities and are perpetrated by family members, friends, caregivers, and strangers.
And whereas elder abuse is grossly underreported because the elderly who are being abused find it very difficult to tell anyone and are usually ashamed and sometimes afraid.
And whereas signs of animal abuse and neglect are an early warning sign of a senior's need for assistance, all citizens are encouraged to work together in reporting animal cruelty for the welfare and safety of our vulnerable citizens and people with disabilities.
And whereas the Oregon law enforcement community adult protective service staff and advocates have forged a stronger working relationship through community-based multidisciplinary teams to prevent and prosecute abuse and neglect.
And whereas Oregonians need to be better informed on preventative measures and the indicators of abuse and neglect.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners that June 15, 2017 is designated as Elder Abuse Awareness Day in Deschutes County, Oregon.
We encourage all citizens of Deschutes County to unite as a community to support our aging and people with disabilities.
And I would welcome a motion.
I move approval of proclamation declaring June 15, 2017 as Elder Abuse Awareness Day.
I'll second that.
Okay. For the discussion.
I just want to say thanks also for coming in and explaining a little bit about your program
and the work you do.
Thank you.
Yes.
Yep.
Just, you know, the message to the community, friends, neighbors, just understanding who's
in your community, really looking out for each other and their impossible time in
need, but understanding over time that a situation could get bad and it could end up being
a really bad situation if we don't take a moment and ask.
Yes.
Thank you.
And I would state that while we take today and set aside and proclaim today the day of
awareness, but that we have a captive audience here today that please check on your neighbors.
We just had snowmageddon and, you know, we all could use a little extra help and a set
of eyes that make sure that we are as healthy as we can be.
So I think your work is critical to the success and health of our community.
So thank you.
Thank you.
So hold on.
Commissioner Henderson?
Yes.
Commissioner Nebone?
Yes.
Sure, let's just, there we go.
All right team, and there's a slight typo, so I'm going to hold off on signing this
and we'll get it to you.
Okay, yep.
All right, and continuing to share the love, we have another pro...
Proclamation. The reading of a proclamation, recognizing June 19th through 25th, 2017 as amateur
radio week. Sergeant, gentlemen, great to see you.
Well, good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you very much. Nathan Garry, emergency manager. Just like to thank the board for
considering this resolution or proclamation, brought Annie Johnson, Byron Cotton from our
amateur radio emergency services unit which serves Deschutes County. These
gentlemen are very important and integral to our backup auxiliary
communications plan in Deschutes County and Central Oregon. They've assisted us
with EOC or emergency operations center activations. They've helped provide
communication for events. They do a lot of training and a lot of outreach to
community to enhance our community's resilience and time of disaster.
specifically since we live in such a technological age.
Sometimes having some good old school hams
at our disposal is pretty important.
Just a few stats, there's about 800 amateur,
or amateur radio license operators into Schuess County.
Our areas unit has about 25 members
and there's about 60 in Hydard,
which is High Desert Amateur Radio Group.
And those are the two main organizations
that serve in kind of an emergency capacity.
So Aries serves the county and Hyde Arc assists St. Charles with communications across their
system during disasters.
Okay.
Excellent.
Gentlemen, do you have comments to add?
We just appreciate the county's recognition of the work that we do.
Sometimes it's just you keep doing it and you don't know that there's any recognition
out there.
or nobody even knows that you're doing something.
It's just when all else fails is when we actually get the recognition because we're there.
All this fancy technology will not matter at all should we have that type of an event.
So you are the backbone to protect our community.
And we are ground zero essentially for the Cascadia in terms of response.
We will be ready to be able to assist the rest of the state in recovery there.
And I've had an opportunity to participate in the field day that I'm not sure if that's the correct terminology.
And I was just – I didn't know what to expect, but I really appreciate the work. Great deal.
So do we have other?
I was just thinking there may be a point in time in the August 21st where about 150,000 people take a photo at the same time
and want to send it somewhere so this may be a short period of time we can
really be the only way to get a voice call through for a few minutes or you know
it'll be interesting time won't it more than one type of eclipse and the focus of
what we're it's very seldom we get an opportunity to have a planned disaster
yeah and it's not even a disaster it's an event right hopefully not but it's
mobilizing all of us and it's it's going to be quite a challenge so well
So if we think of the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, we anticipate hundreds of thousands
of people coming this direction.
So if we have an extra couple hundred thousand people, this will certainly be a pilot for
us to work through that.
So good.
Commissioner Henderson?
And so I'm a new commissioner, so I actually didn't know what she did.
So that's good because you have the proclamation, so it's good to hear about it.
So thank you for doing that.
Yeah.
At this time, before the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, a proclamation
recognizing Amateur Radio Week of June 19 to the 25th, 2017, whereas amateur radio operators
are celebrating over a century of the miracle of human voice broadcast over the airwaves,
and whereas amateur radios continue to provide a bridge between peoples, societies and countries
by creating friendships and the sharing of ideas.
And whereas amateur radio operators have also provided countless hours of community services to emergency service agencies and to other local organizations throughout these decades.
And whereas the amateur radio services are provided wholly uncompensated.
Whereas the County of Deschutes also recognizes the services amateur radio operators provide to the Deschutes County Emergency Management
into our many civilian emergency response organizations,
including the American Red Cross,
the Oregon Department of Transportation,
and the region's hospitals.
And whereas the same individuals have further demonstrated
their value in public assistance
by providing free radio communications for local events,
such as bicycle events and marathons
where no other communications are available,
and participate in disaster preparedness presentations
throughout the county.
And whereas the County of Deschutes recognizes and appreciates the diligence of these hams,
what did you call them, old-time hams, old-school hams.
The County of Deschutes recognizes and appreciates the diligence of these hams,
who have also served as weather spotters in the Skyworn program of the U.S. Government Weather Bureau.
And whereas the American Radio Relay League, ARRL, is the leading organization of amateur radio in the USA.
whereas ARRL, Amateur Radio Field Day exercises will take place on June 24th and 25th in 2017
and as a 24-hour emergency preparedness exercise and demonstration of radio-amateur skills and readiness
to provide self-supporting communications without further infrastructure being required.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners that June 19th
through the 25th, 2017 is designated as the Week of the Amateur Radio Week in Deschutes
County.
Move approval.
Okay.
Second.
Further discussion?
Commissioner DeBone?
Yes.
Commissioner Henderson?
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
Thank you very much.
Congratulations.
Thank you very much.
Yes.
Good to see you.
And I bet we're going to get some applause on this one next we have a consideration of signature of document number 2017-178 and notice of intent to award a contract I mean really get ready for the applause for the grind and overlay of Baker Road Lakeview Drive and River Woods Drive gentlemen good to see you the crowd is here for you please.
Thank you, good morning everyone.
For the record, Cody Smith, Deschutes County Road Department.
Before you this morning is consideration of signature of document number 2017-178, a notice
of intent to award contract for the grind and overlay of Baker Road, Lakeview Drive
and River Woods Drive to High Desert Aggregate and Paving, LLC.
Little background on the project.
So this project is a 3-inch grind and overlay of Baker Road, Lakeview Drive, and River Woods
Drive.
That's essentially kind of the primary collector route for the shoots River Woods.
The project also includes some tree root repair, there's some damage to that road
that was caused by some trees that are adjacent to the road.
The project limits are effectively from the intersection of Baker Road and Cinderbute
road to the west intersection of Choctaw Road and Riverwoods Drive, excuse me, Baker and
Brookswood, not Cinderview.
We, the department received two bids for this project on June 1, 2017.
The apparent low bidder was high-desert aggregate and paving with a bid of $694,095.
The engineer's estimate for this project, we'll have to turn it back to, was $760,811.
Thank you.
Yes.
Wonderful.
Great bid.
Competitive market.
Yes.
It's really good to see.
OK, do we have questions?
OK.
Pretty straightforward, exciting to get this done.
So I'd welcome a motion.
Move approval of signature of document number 2017178.
Second?
OK, for the discussion, Commissioner Nabone?
Yes.
Commissioner Henderson?
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
All righty, no applause?
Oh my goodness, just kidding.
First for the road department.
All right. Next item, consideration of signature of document number 2017-393.
Notice of intent to award an inmate food and commissary.
Commissary, sorry, services. I need to start doing this more. Captain, good to see you.
Commissary, thank you.
Don't see that written down too many times.
No, yeah.
We need to get some chairs that don't have arms, please.
Yes.
OK.
Well, there might be.
Yes, OK.
Good morning for the record.
I'm Captain Darren McMaster, the jail commander at the Deschutes
County Sheriff's Office.
And in summary, on our inmate food services
commissary account, we currently
have Eramark as our vendor for supplying inmate meals,
commissary and staff meals. Our contract is expiring so we went out for RFP. We
received interest from four different companies which was Aramark Trinity Summit
and Oregon Commission for the Blind. Only Aramark Trinity and Summit presented
RFPs or proposals to us. We put together a team to analyze each one of
companies and their presentations and so over the course of several months they
looked at all three of those companies. Aramark and Trinity became the finalists
with the top proposals. We did a site visit over to Lane County Sheriff's
Office where they have Trinity as their food service provider and in the end
we decided that we would stay with Aramark and so some of the
particulars with Aramark is their annual cost to us will be $400,140.
Trinity came in with a bid at $481,068.
Our budget for Aramark last year was $355,000, and so the bid is up about $45,000 this year
over last year.
However, in looking at Trinity, that would have been an additional $80,000 in cost.
And looking at both companies, Trinity is a good company.
However, for the cost, we felt like Aramark was doing a great job.
We have a very good relationship with Aramark, and we felt that they were the better company.
We did receive a 4% increase in commissary commissions.
So currently, we're getting 18% from Aramark, and when this contract commences, we'll be
getting 22%, which we budgeted $45,000 for fiscal year 17 on commissary sales.
And so if that holds true, it would be about an $1,800 increase with 22%.
What is that, the commissions?
So what commissary is is that those companies, they sell snacks like potato chips and candy
bars and things like that.
There's some kind of sundry items that inmates can buy, lotions and creams and things like
that.
We get a commission off of those sales and this past year it was 18 percent.
The new contract will be 22 percent.
But that's outside the $400,000 food contract.
Correct.
Just the length of the contract?
This is a three-year contract with two one-year extensions
available.
So we're setting up for maybe a five-year period here.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
I was interested to read the process you went through
to go visit them, the notes from everybody.
And that was interesting to see the thoroughness you
went through.
It's pretty intensive.
Yeah.
That's why we don't want to do it maybe
for another five years.
Very competitive, both in their scoring and, you know, in their costs, but it makes sense.
Please.
Hi, commissioners, I just come in the Sheriff's Office for also continuing to work with our
juvenile department and provide the service to the Juvenile Detention Center as well.
Absolutely.
Wonderful.
So, price per meal, we're around a dollar depending on the population?
Yes.
Probably around a dollar forty-three or a dollar something.
Currently today.
They make me a dollar twenty-nine.
Yeah.
You know I was thinking about that.
And when I was in high school I believe lunch was a dollar fifty-five.
So this looks like a pretty good deal to me actually.
Yes, yes.
And it has to be calorically sound and meet certain standards.
Absolutely.
It has to meet a lot of standards.
And actually, with the juvenile meals, there's even more standards that have to be met because
they have to abide by the regulations that are set for school meals.
Very good.
I'd move approval of document number 2017, days 393, second, okay.
Okay.
Further discussion?
Commissioner Henderson?
Yes.
Commissioner DeBone?
Yes.
Thank you, Captain.
Good to see you.
Thank you.
And I received your email this morning.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
All right.
Next we have a public hearing consideration of board signature of resolution number 2017
dash 09019 adopting the fiscal year fee schedule for Deschutes County.
Good morning.
Chris Partain County Finance Department.
So annually we review our fee schedule for compatibility with actual cost of service
and ORS.
and we discussed.
The requested changes at a work session on May 3rd. We did have some updated amounts, I don't know, if you recollect at that meeting on the 3rd, we are including fees, SDC fees, assessed by Ben Park and Recreation District and the Lapine Special Sewer District.
They had not yet adopted those fees when we met on the third.
They have since adopted those fees and I sent through a revised fee schedule the other day
showing that change and that's the only change that was made and those aren't even
our fees.
We collect them, they're a pass-through fund funds and that's it.
So, fee schedule is as discussed on the work session from May 3rd.
I think I've got it.
CDD, Nick, would like to talk to you about...
Lot of record.
Yes, great.
Please, come on down.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
For the record, Nick Lealac, the Sheets County Community Development Department,
and Peter Gatowski may join me here as well in just a moment.
We wanted to talk about the lot of record.
this has been quite a topic that's been raised before the Board of County commissioners in
the press and certainly through our department over the last nearly year due to a Land Use
Board of Appeals decision that was issued on September 29.
And the Land Use Board of Appeals referred to as LUBA is the name of the decision was
the Grimstad decision and it was issued on September 29 of this should be 2016 actually.
September 29th of last year. And we charged at that point $500 for a lot of record decisions.
So in other words, for somebody to come in and demonstrate that they have a legal lot in order to proceed with the development of various types.
We did not charge if a property, I'm sorry.
It's legal lot terminology. So somebody can own the lot and you say legal lot but you're referring to development rights.
It's for the development, right? So it's a parcel that somebody can own. It can be a tax slot. It can be a parcel. It can be a lot.
But in order to proceed with development for a development right, Oregon Revised Statute ORS requires that we can only approve development on a legal lot of record
or a lot that has been verified effectively as developable.
And I'm just acknowledging that somebody could own a parcel free and clear, legally owned.
it just doesn't have development, right? So I'm just making sure terminology is clear as we go through this.
Correct. Anything else to add? Was that clear enough? Okay. So as of last year, the fee was about $500.
We had a separate fee for $925 if there was going to be a more elaborate process where it's a land use decision
where there's notification to neighbors as a 12-day appeal period, et cetera.
And the reason we had that additional fee in there at the time was that we had a land use attorney locally
that wanted that assurance for that attorney's clients.
Because if it was a ministerial decision, and it wasn't appealed,
and this is exactly what happened with the Grimstad,
somebody learned about the decision a year later or so,
they then appealed it, and they had standing before the Land Use Board of Appeals.
This attorney wanted that certainty.
So we had the two fees, but we always only charged the $500 fee,
And again, it was not, it wasn't appealable by anybody, but the applicant.
And it was basically a routine staff checklist.
Post-Grimstad.
Grimstad said we were required to process all lot of records as land use decisions.
So after September 29th, we charged the 925.
So it was good that we had it in our fee schedule.
We weren't anticipating applying it to all applications,
but we did per the required decision.
Our proposed fee schedule that we submitted back in February, early March,
as the conversation started, and we were still getting our arms around,
heads around what this decision meant and the magnitude that we were beginning to experience in the rural county,
and certainly have since then, was a 2.5% fee increase,
which is what's proposed for other land use planning applications.
So 2.5% on top of the $925.
Over the last month or so, and we'll be bringing this to the Board of County
Commissioners for a conceptual discussion next week, which could then proceed
potentially very quickly, the Community Development Department, CDD,
and legal counsel are working on a framework to address this issue that was raised
with the Grim Sadlands Board of Appeals decision.
And so what this would allow us to do is to basically go back
to the way we used to administer a lot of record decisions for properties that have prior
building, septic, or land use permits, so they would be developable without having to
go through the process and pay the fee, et cetera.
Federal conveyances, et cetera, they would still need to buy state law.
So our proposed correction or our proposal for your consideration this morning with
the fee is to, and I'm not sure why it's going backwards.
You have it in front of us.
I'm sorry. Yeah, you have it in front of you, but it's not coming all the way up here.
Yay.
There we go.
So the proposal is to effectively charge the prior fee with the minor increase.
There are $512.
And again, this would be applied to those properties
if a building septic or land use permit were issued for the properties.
To be clear, the fee does not cover actual cost of service, the ACS.
What we would do would be, at the Community Development Department,
we would track our applications over the course of the next six to eight months.
We would report to the Board mid-year how many of those applications we've received,
And then we would revisit the fee as necessary.
And during that time, we would inform, as we've already begun to do at a very conceptual level,
is that we are going to be proposing to correct this issue raised by Luba.
We addressed a part of it last December, but we realized that there's more for us to do
that we could make this more simpler, predictable, and fair for the property owners.
This isn't that the intent is not to allow rural development where it was not previously
allowed.
It's to address the issues raised by the Land Use Board of Appeals.
The fee for $948 in our proposal would still apply to federal conveyances, land conveyances
prior to the county subdivision or partition ordinances.
And the reason is just that that is what it actually cost us to process those applications.
They can be extremely complicated.
if we are still required to work with legal counsel on a lot of these.
And so this is our proposal for your consideration at this time to change this.
So we're happy to answer any of your questions regarding this proposed fee.
Okay.
Well, let me just say that I appreciate the department's quick.
We didn't know how many this would affect.
We didn't know the magnitude of this decision,
and we certainly were not looking for something else to do with our time
when we're growing at such a rapid pace.
So I appreciate making this a priority.
Thank you for laying out some options.
And I turn it to my colleagues to see what direction you'd like to go.
We do have as an option, I don't want you to feel that you have to make – if you need
further information, we can approve the fee schedule with this piece held out and have
this – so long as we make the decision by the end of the month so that we have
a budget by July 1st.
So those are some options.
But thank you.
Please.
So I have several questions, and I think we should discuss it some today, and I'd like
to hear if there's testimony from people about it also.
As you know, we didn't know the scope of it, as Commissioner Mayn said, until the last
meeting that we had, and people actually came and testified, we'd only had a work session
discussion.
We'd had a couple calls from people.
Can you give me an estimate of how many lot of record ministerial decisions and administrative
decisions you'd made prior to Grimstead, like in the year before Grimstead or three years
before Grimstead, just a rough number?
Commissioner, this would be, I guess, I'd probably say, prior to Grimstead in 2016,
We probably had, you were able to see, 25 and 40 of each, or combined?
I would say of combined.
Most of them, if not all of them, were ministerial.
It was rare, again, if a representative wanted that land use decision to be – if they
wanted the notice – the lot of record decision to be noticed and treated as a land use
decision, then we would have done so at the $925 fee.
but those were rare instances.
And then how many have you had since – and so people in the eyes that were talking – Grimm
said it's the case that required us to redo the definitions of a lot of record.
The Land Use Board of Appeals said we weren't doing it correctly, and so we referred to
Grimm said, but that's – we're talking about the case that caused this change.
So since then, which was – the decision was in September?
Yeah, the decision was, the land use board of appeals decision was September 29th of 2016.
Since that time, and of course since we've reached out regularly with realtor groups,
I would say we're approaching 100.
And all of those are administrative at this point.
Based on the Grimstad decision, it's paramount that we treat each lot of record decision
as a land use decision, which again means that decision is noticed to neighboring property
owners per our procedures code well
if we want to discuss after we hear the
testimony or just a couple thoughts I have that one is that I
think there's a
big distinction between ones before the case and ones after I think the ones
before the case were property owners needing feeling they needed I mean I
don't know exactly maybe we need more briefing on this but more property
owners need to clarify it for their own benefit maybe or something not as
as much. We're now in a world where they're being forced to do it because of a change
in procedures. So I look at it as a different fee approach for the ones post-Grimstead than
I do. I don't really see the same continuity. I could be persuaded differently with some
additional briefing and stuff, but I think that's really the concern I have that it's
a burden of people, a much broader scope of people and sector of people may be influenced
by, as I understand it, it's somewhat the result of us having an accommodating policies
with regard to growth and et cetera, and we've been told by Luba that we were too accommodating
or whatever.
So while we grew, I think we had additional fees, so I'm inclined to reduce these fees
below this and look at that. So that's kind of where I'm coming from, and I'm anxious
to hear other testimony and have further discussion. But I think because we're also looking at this
period where we do this text amendment, if we change the rules now from December, we're
still looking several months out and I'm concerned with charging people now something
and then we decide to charge later, well, what about the people who are charged
this amount, you know, I'd like everybody to kind of pose grimstead to have paid a similar
amount, so I'm concerned about that, yeah, equity within that, so that's my kind of philosophically
where I stand.
Okay.
So just kind of the logistics of our fee schedule.
So currently do we have the ministerial and administrative decision in our fee schedule,
$500 and $925, was the proposal to remove that $500 fee, you know, previously to
go from 2 to back to 1. Now I'm thinking, you know, just our spreadsheet of fees.
Our spreadsheet of fees, they're currently increasing it from 500 to 51250.
What was the proposal to remove that right before this is my question.
That was the proposal.
Yeah.
And now we're going to keep two fees, two levels.
And the primary reason was that we were no longer able to process these as ministerial
decisions.
Okay, so we're basically, yeah, when we had a work session,
one of those fees wasn't there, but now we're proposing to keep it in there
and increment it a little bit and define it as only if we have a prior building,
septic or land use permit and decision.
Making sure I'm clear on that.
Would you benefit from further discussion on this item as well?
Would you, or do you feel ready to make a decision?
Well, for the fee schedule, it seems pretty simple.
You know, it's adding back a fee that we thought we were going to get rid of
And it's a lesser fee for a service that may or may not cover its cost
but I mean I'm supportive of adding that feedback in for the business case of the fee schedule and there's yeah
There's a lot more discussion to be had on this topic in the future. Okay
That sounds counter to what you are recommending. Am I unless I'm not understanding correctly?
Sounds
significantly is what I'm going to recommend or what I would support.
But I would like to know a little more about that piece of what was leading the 25 to 40
you had before Grimstead, what was leading people to do that.
Are they really distinguishable to the ones opposed to that?
Well, and I acknowledge, yeah, there's a lot more discussion to be had on this topic.
And I'm concerned with how many, if we go to a lower fee,
and it's really below actual cost of service in your minds,
how much is that costing?
Because our job is to be a steward of the county's money.
So we still don't really know how many scope of this.
So I think we're going to have a discussion of that next,
was it next week, at the Mondays meeting.
Thank you, commissioner. So the amount that the actual cost of service is really going to
be the proposed $948.25 per just given the amount of work that we need to do to verify that a
property is a legal lot of record, including the land use decision component of it, which
the public notification, the findings, the appeal period, et cetera.
So that's actually what we believe is the cost of service. It's an average cost of service.
And the average can mean that you can range from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, depending on the complexity.
So that was one of the questions. The prior question of what were people applying for in the kind of 25 to 40 prior to Grimstad,
It could be just a non-farm dwelling.
It could be a solar farm.
It could be any use proposed on a rural lot that's allowed in the code.
So it would really span the entire spectrum of uses
that they just needed to verify that they had a legal lot of record
prior to proceeding with either a subsequent land use application
for a non-farm dwelling or just to a building permit for a home.
So, but there's, we kind of a wide spectrum of kinds of permits that are issued out of
community development.
So, are there some that weren't included?
Like we probably never had a lot of record when we were just doing a septic permit or
we never had a lot of record when we were doing a small remodel.
It was like, you talk about solar farm, that's a big project.
A non-farm dwelling is kind of a very significant.
So is there, I think, see what I'm saying.
I do, that there are circumstances where someone can come in for a site evaluation.
We do the best we can with our coordinated services to have the applicant make sure that
as they're coming in for a site evaluation that they're talking to planning to make
sure that that vacant property is a legal lot for development purposes, and so prior
to Grimstad, we would have had that coordination and it continues today, but we have to make
sure that that creation of that property, that water parcel, was lawful.
And so the 25 to 40, whether they led to large-scale development or whether they were
just positioning that property for a single family dwelling, there needed to be that
analysis that the conveyance occurred prior to any adoption of a partition or subdivision
ordinance that we had, and those occurred in the late 1970s.
So think of pre-Grimstad as those properties being vacant with no structure, with no prior
land use decision.
This is a step that I think occurs in every county just to demonstrate that at the
time of that conveyance it was lawful.
But if I remember, in your plan, you had like 500 building permits issued last year.
So a very small number of those had to do a lot of record verification,
whereas now we've got this big scope of lots of record verifications.
You have a house, you need a barn, you have a house, you want to do a remodel.
So it's really a different class of what we're looking at.
The challenge would try to sell your property.
Yeah.
Get this out there as well.
I mean, just it's growing as we sit here.
So just back to what I was proposing
is the fact that we were going to go back to one fee,
and I was supporting the fact that we're going to two fees.
Commissioner Henderson mentioned maybe a different number,
a dollar amount.
But I was really just advocating for the fact
that we're going back to a $512 fee now.
So that's just trying to get through this a little bit.
Yeah, I think there may be recognition,
though that there are so many more that this would apply to versus what it might have at
that point.
But I think, so I have two individuals who want to speak on the fee schedule, and I am
going to go ahead and move forward with this part, but I'm bookmarking that conversation
and I'm looking at legal counsel.
At the end, I may need to know if the board were not to go forward with this particular
piece within the fee schedule, can we approve the full fee schedule?
And this is a question for when we get done with the public testimony.
Can we approve the remainder of the fee schedule with this piece coming back at a later date before the deadline of June 30th?
And if not, can we reduce the fee schedule at any amount?
If we were to put the fees in and we have a work session and we decide on the 29th or even on July 5th that we want to reduce those fees to zero
or any other number that's not above what's listed, can we do that?
Okay. Let's move on to public testimony. And this is on the Deschutes County fee schedule.
And I'd like to ask Ms. Gould to join us. Nancy, please.
And then I have Ms. Rowley, I believe. And those are the two individuals I have noted for the fee schedule.
Hello. My name is Nancy Gould. I live in Deschutes County.
I was glad to hear your Director Laylach mention that your average cost of a lot of record is $948.25, and that the proposed fee of $512.15 does not cover the actual cost of service.
It's somewhat troubling to me since your CDD department is fee-based that you're not covering the cost of your service.
And to give you some examples,
things like code enforcement tend not to be funded.
Not collecting these monies, I think, is not appropriate as a beginning policy since the Grinstead case provided case law.
I
don't think there should be a difference in how we treat lot of record whether a property is federally owned or non-fedrally owned.
And you in essence through this work plan are suggesting that the average cost of service of 948-25 be applied towards federal land lots of record.
So I would make the suggestion that you keep the 948-25 as the fee base for all lots of record moving forward.
Thank you.
And I would also add that these lots of record cases
that are coming before you are substantially
more complicated, the low hanging fruit
in your community has been developed out
and these properties do need scrutiny
and that entails multi-review within your department
and inner jurisdiction communication within your departments.
And whether it involves consultation with water rights,
whether it involves consultations with Dogami,
these are complex times in our community,
and it isn't just a simple checklist.
If everything were that way, it would be awesome,
and you would probably be at the lower end of your scale,
but you also heard your director mention that some of these actually cost several thousand dollars.
So, again, I would suggest that if that 948.25 has been ascertained as your average cost,
that that be applied across the board, and it makes it very simple and an action item that could occur today.
Thank you.
You can?
Yes.
Sorry, Nancy.
He has a question.
So I think the reason we're struggling with this isn't – is not so much that we don't
have funds in the budget.
It's really because we've opened up a whole new requirement that some of these people
are having to do a lot of record are not doing very – anything very impactful at
all.
If we found that there was different actual cost of services for different kinds of actions,
would you support a tiering of those?
I think that becomes administratively complicated.
And our community is better served by one fee for all.
Thank you.
I think the challenge comes about if you have an existing home and you're trying
to sell it, and we've already approved everything on the property.
Now those individuals are having to come in and then re-verify whether it's really convoluted.
That's the cost of doing business.
If you develop without a legal lot of record having been ascertained, it's a little bit like buying a car and you don't get the title.
And then someone says, well, help us out.
So the issue for me is moving forward, these are complex.
And this is the cost of doing business today in our community.
And I believe that the CDD should be covering its costs.
Thank you.
Ms. Rowley, and then Ms. Macbeth.
Hi.
Thank you.
I'm Leanne Rowley, and I'm one of those people who, yes, lives in a house on a apparently
non-legal lot of record, which I had no idea of.
My place was subdivided and built on originally developed in 1984.
It had a house when I bought it. It had a barn when I bought it.
It had pastures and fields and a well and a septic when I bought it 13 years ago.
I have done additions. I've put a horse arena up.
Everything went fine. There was nothing in the records to
indicate that I didn't have a legal lot of record.
It was not an issue until this last year.
When I did have it today, I decided that I need to sell my property.
All of a sudden, I have not just the $948 fee, but the additional $1,000 that it cost
to have a lawyer help me fill out all the paperwork.
This is not a fair process for our community.
I understand if it's larger parcels of property that haven't been developed and
that haven't met all those things.
But this is an issue that affects people in this room
who probably don't even know that they have the issue.
I was not even made aware that this was a problem
until I went to list my property.
Thank you.
And again, we were not looking for something
to spend extra time on.
This is something that was handed to us through case law.
So we are doing our best to find balance.
And you know, both aspects and thoughts have merit.
We're trying to figure out the middle ground.
It would be nice if the county could send out notification to people who are in this
issue.
And we are talking about that as well in best ways to get to individuals.
It's happening right now.
Yeah.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
And then, Carol, please join us.
And then I have Mr. Kuhn, and that's the last individual that I have.
I have signed up for the fee schedule.
Good morning, commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning on behalf of Central Oregon Land Watch.
My name is Carol Macbeth and I'm the staff attorney for Central Oregon Land Watch.
I'd like to speak to you today about a different aspect of your fee schedule, also having
to do with land use.
And that is the cost of appeals to the board of commissioners from one of your hearings
officers.
When a hearings officer makes a decision, how much it costs to come before you
if the person thinks that perhaps the decision was incorrect.
In other counties, this fee is around $250.
Harney County does it for $250.
Willowa County does it for $250.
And Clackamas County and Urban County also grants appeals
and administers quasi-judicial proceedings for $250.
But in the fall of 2015, a woman who lives east of town
in Deschutes County wanted to appeal to you,
a decision from one of your hearings officers,
approving a solar array, two large solar arrays on a property across the road from her.
She was concerned because there's a canal traversing the property.
It's within an irrigation district, so the land appeared to be arable,
which would mean that the Dischutes County's Hearings Officer's decision was incorrect in her opinion,
and she wanted to come before you and appeal it.
But when she asked how much it was cost, she was told it would be $11,276 to come to you.
$11,000 and $726 to come before this board just to make an appeal.
If whatever had happened had she been denied here and gone to Luba,
it would have cost her $400.
So Luba is administering quasi-judicial proceedings for $400.
Harnie County, Wallowa County, Clackamas County can administer them for $250.
The cost to appeal to a hearings officer is $250.
The Court of Appeals here's cases for $373 and the Supreme Court of Oregon here's up for $373.
So we think that your appeals fees are out of line with the cost of administering this procedure.
We're just briefly touched on this in a lot of record discussion.
When someone comes in and asks for a service from the county like a dog license or a lot of record license,
they have to pay for what they're asking for.
When appellants come to you, they're asking for a quasi-judicial proceeding, and that's
what they should be charged for.
We have all this evidence that it should cost a few hundred dollars, but it's cost sometimes
as much as, well, 11,726 is not the highest fee we've seen.
In Tripp County, there was a fee of like $15,000 once to appeal a destination resort.
And your fee schedule will also allow for fees of $15,000 to come here on an appeal.
And so we mentioned in our written testimony, there's a couple of very serious reasons why we disagree with this.
One of them is that the Oregon Constitution actually has a clause called the No Justice for Purchase Clause.
So what it says is that, going back to the Magna Carta, the doors of the courthouse can't be closed to poor people.
but that's effectively what's happening in
To shoot this county, whether you mean to do it or not, only the wealthiest people can
come in and appeal these decisions. They simply can't afford it. And so we urge you to reject
that portion of your, of the fee schedule, the appeals fees portion. It should not be
any tie to how much it costs to apply for a land use. Because what the person is asking
for, who appeals to you, is asking for a quasi-judicial proceeding. They're not
asking for a destination resort or a non-farm dwelling. At the end, they won't have a
non-farm dwelling and they won't have a destination resort, all they're getting is the justice
before you and that's something that everyone is entitled to justice and to correct administration
of the laws.
The special service they're asking for is across a judicial proceeding and the average
cost should be a few hundred dollars.
I'm just going to tell you, read to you what we wrote at the end of our comments.
The harm that results...
Are those comments that we have a copy of?
We will.
We just learned that the PLCs were coming up a few days ago.
Sorry about that.
The harm the results from denying poor people the opportunity to correct error is not merely that abstract legal error will remain on the record.
More fundamentally, it undermines the moral legitimacy of the state's land use system and Oregon courts in the hearts and minds of all but the very wealthiest citizens.
It is contrary to state policy, but it shoots County to insulate the County's land use
decisions from public scrutiny by pricing appellate remedies beyond the reach of interested
members of the community.
Land Watch is very much in favor of having all members of the community participate
in all parts of the planning process, including the appeals process.
And goal one of the land use planning system is public participation.
The County's proposed and its past land use appeals these manifestly discriminate
against participants on the basis of wealth and are inconsistent with the state policy
encouraging public participation by everyone.
So we urge you to deny the proposed appeals fees for the reasons outlined above.
Thank you.
Sorry, but I'm going to choose sooner.
Okay.
So I have them for you.
Okay.
Well, do you have any consideration today to tell them or to share?
It would be great.
Thank you.
I have a question.
Yes, sir.
And maybe CDD would clarify.
Do you have an item?
We've got quite a few pages of fees.
When she refers to a given fee, do you know what page that would be on that we're talking
about in the packet?
We do provide an excerpt of the fee schedule that shows these.
Does it show what page that is?
It's actually an appendix page, but it's item number CPDN 2 and 4.
Okay.
Thank you.
I just wanted to add one more.
That's okay.
I think, yep.
Just so we can – we need to move on for the –
Oh, I see.
here from Nick. We'd love to have comment, and then also if you don't mind going over
that, that'd be great.
Certainly.
Thank you. Sorry, Caroline, you have to –
Commissioner is on page 22 of the fee schedule, and it's near the bottom, and she correctly
identified that the current fee is $2,600 plus 20 percent of the original application
That is proposed to increase to $2,665, so it's a 2.5% increase over the current fee.
And what that fee covers is legal counsel's time multiplied by their hourly internal charge,
and that's what is the base fee of $2665.
The 20% of the original application fee is the amount of time it requires CDD
to prepare the application materials, to conduct the work session with the board,
to conduct the hearing with the board, to write the decision with the board,
to coordinate with legal, the applicant, all of those aspects that we're doing again.
So the fee is intended to cover our actual cost of services.
We also have a $250 fee, like all of the other counties, that were referenced.
If an administrative decision is appealed to the hearings officer,
it's from the hearings officer to the board of county commissioners.
And I think I heard, and I don't mean to refute testimony,
but I think I heard that Clackamas County charges $250.
Clackamas County's Board of County Commissioners,
they do not even hear land use.
So the appeal fee is to either a hearings officer
or the planning commission, but their board doesn't
hear land use at all.
It goes directly from either the planning commission
or the hearings officer directly
to the land use board of appeals.
And that's, it's a decision that our Board
of County Commissioners has made for decades
to hear land use decisions and then to cover
the actual cost of service.
And there have been times where we have declined to hear a matter because we felt that it
was best suited to go to Luba.
So I think we have a mix of we try to be available to the public because we are your public servants
for that.
But if we have felt that it made most sense for it to go straight to Luba, we've done
that as well.
I would just like to clarify that the fee can be charged by Oregon statute.
The legislature has told the county that it may charge for these costs that he's
talking about.
The question is, who is it to be charged and it is not the appellant, it is the person
who's applying because it's actually, the county knows how much on average it will cost
to go from the beginning of, for example, a non-farm dwelling to the end.
There are an average number of appeals and there's an average cost for those appeals
and that cost has to be charged to the person who's looking for a non-farm dwelling.
Appellants aren't looking for a non-farm dwelling.
They're not looking for a destination resort and they can't be made to pay for them.
It's against the law and that's why we're going to we wanted to urge you to deny it. Okay. Thank you
And we are done with your testimony. Okay, so much you want to ask the question
I thought you said the fee was eleven thousand seven hundred twenty six and you're talking about two thousand two hundred or something
What's that was a hundred percent?
That is tacked on that twenty percent can make it as high as eleven thousand two hundred seventy six starting from two thousand
So you're but so I understand what you're saying because we haven't talked about this before you're saying
It's not that a fee is charged to pay for services.
It just should be the applicant that pays if anybody wants to appeal at the applicant pays that if the
Applicant wants to appeal he would he would the applicant would pay at the 250
But the charges of all the other charges that aren't associated with the quasi judicial proceeding
Must go somewhere else but to the appellant because all the appellant is asking for is that hearing?
They're not asking for any other services
And if Clackamas County is not hearing him, I didn't know that it just says a local appeal fee.
But Wallowa and Harney appear to be really there.
The commissioners are doing it for 250.
And again, one could go across the street to the Dishies County Courthouse.
The appeals fee there is $252.
So I just don't understand why it would be more than that.
Okay. That's all right. We'll get clarity. Please.
Give me the provide.
And the $11,000 was for two solar farms,
and they were approximately $5,700 apiece.
because it was $2,600 plus 20% of the original application fee,
which included conditional use permit, site plan,
and I can't recall what the other pieces were.
So the appeal fees on each one of those were, I think,
it may have even been a bit above $11,000.
The only other part I would mention is that
when we receive any land use application,
if it is complicated, if it's controversial,
if it's a matter of first impression,
which means the board is going to be interpreting it,
We send that to a hearings officer initially and the applicant bears that cost of $5,000
or it's the actual cost of service that we build at the hearings officer.
So we've had those go as high as $14,000, that's a complete extreme, but it's not
uncommon for them to range between $4,500 and $5,500 and I'm not trying to provide
a justification of the appeal fee cost whatsoever, but I just want you to know that we
We do make sure that a public hearing is conducted if an application is deserving of a hearing
to a hearing's officer.
Right.
But it's not to the board.
So I sort of hear that.
So it sounds like a point of discussion for us as we go forward in terms of the challenges
and making sure.
And I also hear your testimony that it isn't the amount, it's also who pays as well.
Yes.
I think the amounts are very carefully documented.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
Next I have Mr. Kuhn.
Will you please?
There you are.
And then last card I have on the fee schedule for the county is Mr. Sadi.
Okay, great.
Okay.
You're on deck.
And I am going to start limiting testimony to three minutes.
We have to get word.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is William Kuhn.
I live at 65575 Sizemore Road, which is right in the middle of the Tumulow winter
dear range and I care about wildlife. If you cut fees for development purposes, you have
fewer fees available to protect things like wildlife. You have fewer fees available for
your staff. You have fewer fees available to deal with those other issues that don't
produce fees themselves. For example, code enforcement. If you don't have enough fees to pay for code
enforcement, if you don't have enough fees to pay for the wildlife protection, I'm going to be upset
because I want the wildlife protected. I'd like to bring to your attention something that happened
And a long time ago in Deschutes County, there was a requirement by developers to record
the, excuse me, there was a requirement by the county to have the Director of Community
Development Department record final partition plat maps.
That code was in force until about 1986 or so.
Prior to that, many of the final partition plaque maps were never recorded as they should have been,
as they were required to be by ORS 92.025.
I'm calling to your attention that in 2004, after four years of begging and pleading this
county, this county commission and CDD to record our final partition plat map, the map
was recorded.
In that process, I discovered some 500 parcels that could be in the same position
that we are.
It is the misfeasance and non-feasance of this county that caused this.
At this point in time.
I think he's going back to a lot of record, I would say.
Yes, that is correct.
A lot of record is the focus of this.
This county needs to look at the history that it is produced.
These fees are necessary to correct on these parcels.
I'll stop there. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Commissioner.
It's Tony Ossetti.
And under Terrell McBeth's testimony about, you know, justice being paid for only for the rich,
I've been in this situation by appeals to Luba,
and also they appealed my application to you.
But so, I'm sitting here thinking, wow, they paid $200 or $300 or $400 of Luba to appeal
and it caused me tens and tens of thousands of dollars to defend what I'd already won
at two locations or two entities at the county level.
So with that being said, they want to be able to appeal for a minimal amount of money
and I have to defend for a grand amount of money, something.
So maybe the fair thing to do is whatever costs the applicant, it should cost the appellant.
If they want to have skin in the game, this brings them to the table.
If they want to have fair justice, just like I made an application and to have that fair justice applied,
therefore one hand weighs the other hand.
And their fees to appeal should be the same amount that it costs the applicant to get
the same definition of justice.
So have some skin in the game, have the same monetary responsibility as the applicant,
and then I think that would be a fair way of balancing justice in their own words.
And I believe Ms. Ghoul said something about the $925 fee being applicable, do not lower it.
And I believe that's, you know, if that's the average cost, that's the average cost.
But the average cost on both sides of the fence should be applied.
Thank you.
Okay.
Anyone else?
Last call for fee schedule.
All right. Looking at the legal counsel, do we have some options before us?
Just so the board has direction.
Commissioners, yes. I think all three options that you previously identified are certainly valid.
You can approve the resolution as is, and then you can come back in a later date
just specific to the lot of record fees or any other changes you want to make.
Of course, that subsequent resolution would need to be approved prior to July 1.
You could certainly continue the resolution the entire matter today to a later meeting and then approve it at that time with some changes that would probably produce a cleaner record.
And then of course you can what I would describe as calling an audible I think you can remove several of the line items regarding a lot of record.
one of the commissioners could propose a motion that is approving all of it
subject to a couple of the line items regarding a lot of record and then come
back at a later date with a new resolution just for those lot of record
line items. Okay, excellent. All the ideas that were put forward earlier I
think are supported by the Deschutes County Code. Excellent, thank you. Okay,
so I would look to my colleagues at this point on what direction you'd
Well, I don't think we are too far off. I was advocating for that lower fee to be added,
you know, to be included in the fee schedule, and then for the discussion to be had in the near future.
So I'm kind of...
Pleased with all three options also.
Okay.
Yeah.
We're going to try to narrow it down.
If you look at page 24 of the fee schedule, that 512.50 is there.
Okay.
So you adopt it as if the lower and the higher fee are both included.
Okay.
But just to be clear, we can, what would it take for us to amend that fee in the future?
I would propose a subsequent resolution that had a new exhibit A with just those
up particularly line items attached. And would we need to do that before July 1st?
Yes. Can we change the fees in August if we are reducing not raising?
There are procedures. I would need to go back and look through the
Deschutes County Code 4.12 a little bit more carefully, but I didn't know that
that there are options for emergency fees and for some other changes, perhaps one of
those options would apply.
Wait.
Okay.
Well, for Claire?
Yeah.
No, I'll let him.
Okay.
She's ready.
Well, so there's, you know, pages and pages of fees.
Lots of them aren't changed, so I don't really have questions about those.
I received a memo this morning that had been emailed last night detailing the two
areas where there are changes.
changes. One is there's some significant changes in the health fees. I haven't had a chance
to read the memo. I got it this morning.
You know, we had a work session a month ago
on this. So I want to understand why, what the increase in the health fees are about.
I haven't heard anybody, I haven't heard anybody talk to me. I haven't read, you
know, we just got, like I said, I felt the memo should have been something I got
a few days ago. I also have questions with regard to the increase in the building fees,
which is the other big area, that certain areas. So I have questions about that. So I just want
to understand what those are. This may be a routine thing we do every year, but it's
the first time I've done it. But there's, again, I don't know why certain areas are
going up. The electrical fees are going up, but another isn't. I'm concerned we've
had a lot of increases in building fees over the last six or seven years, and
I don't know that these are necessary.
The third thing is I've heard some comments today that, well, we need all these fees because
we're lacking funds for enforcement.
We're not lacking funds for enforcement.
We just went through budget hearings.
We have significantly more revenues coming in from community development right now
than we spent last year.
I think we're going to have that again this year, so for those of you that think
I think that's the reason, if you have a question about enforcement, it's lack of
fees.
That isn't, in my opinion, that's not the case.
And then the fourth thing on a lot of record, I really want to understand, we're going
before we set any new fees on it, because I don't know the scope of the problem.
I want to understand why, how they came, the community development came up with
an actual cost of service. I take it that's true but I want to understand it because it's
a large fee for people.
It's not just that fee, it's other things. It's a surprise to
people. The analogy was made to buying a car. Well, when you think when you buy a car you
get the title, the title's good. What we're really telling people is the title's good,
but you can't do with the car what you thought you could. And so it's really different than
that. I just, I think we need to go further on that. So I have the three things we're
talking about. I don't have any problems with the other, you know, things like SDCs
and things that are other jurisdictions have set in the Black Beauty and Sun River.
But I, I'd like some more information and I just feel unprepared to do those today.
Okay, so the memo I've been on conference calls this morning is the memo new fees from
health that are, we had a work session where we went through and identified why we were
doing percentage increase for CDD and we also had the increase the state dollars in cost
of service from health.
Was the memo new fees associated with the fee schedule or were they outlining clarification?
The memo was the same memo that you received for the work session where they were clarifying
why their changes were made.
No new changes have been requested as presented at the work session that we discussed.
We have had what feels like six years worth of work between the work session a month
ago and today.
So here is what I'm going to propose.
Rather than – and I'm thinking of a clean record, I think, Chris, what's
What's going to make most sense is that we hold off on this and continue this hearing
to another date certain that's before the end of the year.
And that offers us an opportunity to have the work session on a lot of record, consider
some of these other pieces, be able to dust off the information that we received from
the work session not too long ago, and bring this back as a fully loaded decision.
So I would look to administration in terms of which day that makes sense to do.
And that would be a continuation of the public hearing, but at that, are we required to take
further testimony at that point?
What I wouldn't – I think we've gathered the concerns.
This allows us an opportunity to digest that, and I just don't want to waste a group
of time if folks – it's more for us to have the procedure of decision versus oral
testimony.
Yes, Chair.
I think that would be your discretion.
Okay, very good. So to offer clarity for individuals, I am recommending that we not have oral testimony
at the – when we bring this back for a decision. But it allows us – we, of course, will have
any changes posted so that individuals can get us information prior to the meeting.
Is that good?
All right. Okay. So we are continuing this hearing on this fee schedule until…
Commissioner, as you actually have four meetings between now and the end of the month, two
next week and two the following week, I would suggest just continue to provide a cushion
that either of the two meetings next week, either the 19th or the 21st, might be a better
choice.
Okay.
Let's go for the 21st.
Okay.
Excellent.
Question for legal.
I have to post a public notice when we have the public hearing.
will, as one was posted for this meeting, will I need to then post for the next one?
And if so, I'll need more lead time.
Because it was posted for this meeting, we can certainly talk offline, but my understanding
is because it was posted for this meeting and the item is being continued, my understanding
is you should not need to repost the, you know.
Okay.
Perfect.
Yeah, this is continuing.
I think it's to a date certain, so that helps us out there as well.
So but yeah, if you want to just verify that sounds great. All right. All right. Well, look at us be like a herd of turtles
Let's move on
So that was item 13 lucky number 13
Miss Chris, I'm not sure that we're finished with your
Expertise we have a public hearing now on consideration of board signature of resolution number 2017
Dash zero to zero and this is just going to go by very quickly black butte ranch county service district
free schedule do we have any changes or no changes were requested all right so
with that do we have the public hearing is open I have not received any cards
stating that you would like to weigh in on black butte ranches service district
anyone left all right so I'm going to close the public hearing and I would
welcome a motion if we feel moved for pro approval of resolution number 2017
17-020 Black Butte Ranch County Service District fee schedule.
Second.
Okay.
Excellent.
Further discussion?
Commissioner Henderson?
Yes.
Commissioner DeBone?
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
All right.
Now we're going to move on to item 15, consideration of board signature of resolution
number 2017-021.
Does she use County 9-1-1 County Service District fee schedule and do we have any
changes?
No changes requested.
Okay.
Excellent.
The public hearing is open.
Would anyone like to weigh in on this budget?
Okay.
Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing.
And I would welcome a motion.
Move Board Signature of Resolution Number 2017-021.
Second.
OK.
Further discussion?
Commissioner DeBone?
Yes.
Commissioner Henderson?
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
Next, Item 16.
Public hearing is open on consideration
of Board Signature of Resolution Number 2017-022.
Bless you.
Extension for H County Service District fee schedule.
Any changes?
No changes.
All right.
Public hearing is open.
Would anyone like to approach the board on this item on this budget?
Okay.
Seeing none.
Hearing is closed.
I would welcome a motion.
I move approval of Resolution Number 2017, Days 022 Extension 4-H County Service District
Fee Schedule.
Second.
Okay.
Further discussion?
Commissioner Henderson?
Yes.
Commissioner DeBone?
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
Next item, consideration of public hearing is open and consideration of board signature
of resolution number 2017-023, Sun River Service District fee schedule.
Any changes?
None.
Okay.
Would anyone like to approach the board on this budget for Sun River?
Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and welcome my motion.
I move board signature of resolution number 2017-023 to Sun River Service District fee
schedule.
Second.
Okay.
For the discussion.
Mr. DeBone?
Mr. Henderson?
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
Okay.
And I think-
That's all.
Thank you.
Very much.
Yes, you will.
All right.
Next item on the agenda is a public hearing.
This is the consideration of adoption of the Community Development Department annual
work plan and annual report.
Mr. Lelac.
And then I do have a handful of individuals who are interested in providing feedback
on this.
And I would ask, since we have a fair stack, and so if you, if someone states your comments already,
we will take those into consideration.
So if you, you know, feel free to offer brevity.
Ditto is great.
And if you have not filled out one of these, please do what this fine gentleman is doing,
hand them to Sharon.
She'll get them to me, and we'll get everyone through the process.
So Mr. Lelac, please.
Thank you.
Thank you, commissioners.
And I will do my best in terms of brevity as well.
I've got a number of slides here to go through and I'll attempt to move through them very
quickly.
What I will say at the beginning is that I received a couple of calls that may have
been confusing to some folks.
We issued the press release stating that this is a public hearing and consideration
for the department's work plan and then we highlighted some of the items that are
on the work plan and we received some inquiries regarding people wanting to provide comments
on those work plan items.
So certainly it's the board's discretion to take those comments now because people
feel strongly about some of the items on the work plan, but I don't know that it's just
to hopefully provide clarity.
This isn't, for example, the opportunity to provide extraordinary comments on the marijuana
regulations, but rather should it be on the work plan to discuss it in this year
or not.
But it'll be, of course, your discretion to take those comments.
So I want to be clear that this is not about the specificity of a piece.
It is, should this be on the work plan?
So for testimony, if you love or hate something, today is the we want you to review it and you will have ample time if we keep it on the list of which it seems there will be a lot of interest.
We will then have public comment opportunities and hearings on such matters. So there we are.
Very good. Thank you. And it's terrific to see so many people here. It really is. The word clearly got out, which is terrific.
So we have the purpose. I'll provide a brief background, some highlights of our accomplishments.
Oh, I'm sorry.
So is this different than the packet?
What you have is just a copy of the presentation.
And that's not in the packet?
That's not in the packet. This is what I'll move through here.
And we will post this online as well to the presentation.
Bless you. Go.
Okay, so a summary of the work plan and then the board options today or like the prior item for later in the month.
Process, I'll provide an overview of the work plan. If you have any questions of me, of course I'll be happy to take those.
The opportunity for public comments, the board discussion and decision to continue or to close the hearing today,
and then to the board's decision whether to approve the work plan as presented or modified either at this meeting or at a future meeting.
So high level of where we're going, it's not a formal land use record and proceeding,
but we're still following the same general format.
Background, the staff prepares the first draft of the work plan generally in late winter, early spring,
based on the Board of County Commissioners annual goals and objectives, multi-year or carryover projects.
So these are projects that are on the work plan that we didn't complete the prior year or in the current year
And we won't be completed. So those will then continue to the subsequent year.
Changes in state law. Goodness knows we've had a lot of these over the last five or six years.
And these always influence our work plan. Public comments.
I can't emphasize enough how important public comments are throughout this entire process.
And the board each year listens very carefully.
And frequently it includes projects on the list that have come from the public.
And you'll see a number of comments that have been incorporated already based on the planning commission's meetings.
And this year, they actually conducted some hearings around the county, which was terrific.
And then, of course, grant and funding sources.
We then, in March and April, we take it to the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Commission for public hearings for recommendations.
The Landmarks Commission conducts a review.
They don't conduct a public hearing, but they both make recommendations.
Here we are now, May and June. The Board conducts a work session of public hearing and adoption prior to the start of the fiscal year.
And then I think it's important for the public and for everybody to know is that throughout the year the Board provides direction to CDD on projects to be initiated based on the Board priorities, resources available, and again just changing circumstances as they come up.
We've each year, the work plan evolves a bit this year.
We've included in an executive summary.
We've included population estimates.
Population projections, actual population. We've tied our performance measures directly
to the Board of County Commissioners' annual goals and objectives, so it's very easy to
see how we are implementing specific board goals and objectives. We've included measures
on and graphs on how we report on our performance measures, and of course we always like to
include a lot of photographs, and here we have one of Anthony outside of our building
with perhaps somebody from KTVZ here that's in the back a couple of months ago.
Some of our accomplishment highlights to sustain high customer service levels,
and these are the inputs. This isn't necessarily the high customer service level.
This just shows the volume increases that we've experienced over the course of the prior year in 2016,
all up 19% to 62% across all divisions.
But really the performance measures is how do we measure our performance in delivering these services?
And for example, here's the Building Safety Division, and this is something we've begun to do over the past year.
And the board has been aware of how we've identified the performance measures.
We have the lower limits, the upper limits, and then we have our targets of what we're aiming to achieve
in providing services to customers. For example, how many inspections or inspection stops per day are our inspectors making?
How many plans are they reviewing per day?
How many inspections are being scheduled online?
What is our plan review turnaround times and days?
So we're looking at customer service internally, externally,
and then we're reporting on those in our work plan.
Environmental soils, the same type of performance measures.
The goal is to turn around our permits certainly quickly,
but that's not the only factor.
We need to make sure that they comply with county code and or state law across the board.
The planning division over the course of the past year and of course here we have different types of decisions.
Those that require prior notice, those are called land use decisions such as we previously discussed with a lot of record decisions
and those that do not require prior notice.
So we have different performance measures there, demonstrates that we met one, we did not meet the other.
But it's important for us, most importantly, to report to the board and to the community
which ones we're achieving and which ones we're not, and then the reasons why.
Code enforcement.
There's a photograph here of marijuana, and it's not that this is in compliance or
out of compliance.
It's the fact that we are receiving extraordinary numbers of calls and inquiries on whether
they are legal or they are not.
And I think, as Lori Furlong is here, our code enforcement manager, she can tell
While you were getting a call on almost every new agricultural building, greenhouse, et cetera,
that goes up in the county about what's going to be in it.
And is it for marijuana or not? And is it medical? Or is it recreational? Or is it legal?
Or is it personal? Or whatever the case may be. So this is certainly
a significant issue that we're addressing on a regular basis.
Our code enforcement staff, last year the board approved
increasing the code enforcement staff to three.
FTE, full-time equivalents, and we also partnered very, very closely with the Sheriff's Department
on marijuana, but also on all code enforcement cases.
And we do propose to come and conduct a work session with the board in the weeks ahead
to talk about how we're jointly, I didn't know pun intended there, how we're aiming
to coordinate closely with the Sheriff's Office on enforcing the code with marijuana
in particular.
Other highlights, the City of Sisters transferred the building program to the county.
That was a very big change for us.
Just over a year ago, we recently co-located with the City of Redmond
to provide a one-stop shop for services for community development,
both within city limits as well as in the rural county.
And of course, people can apply for permits in Sisters or in Redmond or Lapine
throughout the county at any of these locations.
We've implemented 90% of our business process audit recommendations.
We summarized those at a high level during our budget meeting last week.
And we're always pleased to report our customer service surveys.
We have the iPads at our customer service counter.
We started this last year in 2015.
And in 2015 from December through June of 2016,
we received 544 survey responses, and that increased to 870.
And this is such a remarkable turnaround from what we used to get
between 50 and 90 mailed surveys a year.
So we've really modeled this after the private sector and what you'll experience if you're at the airport
or a car rental facility or something of this nature.
So it's very easy to register the services we're providing.
It's a scale of one to three.
In 2015, a 2.94 overall average, and there's the breakdown of timely, respectful, and knowledgeable service.
And then in 2016, virtually the same.
And so we're certainly very, very pleased to provide this data to you that our customers are pleased with the services that we are providing.
We completed the Brownfield grant.
Ben and Redmond participated.
Redmond was really the significant beneficiary of that, the certified local government grant.
That was a historic preservation program project that we completed.
Facilitated adoption of the Bent Urban Growth Boundary.
Certainly a significant accomplishment, certainly not just for the county, but for the city
and for the entire region.
We implemented marijuana regulations.
They kicked off in September.
First, I believe it was last year, so we're about nine, almost 10 months into that program.
That's been a significant undertaking for us.
And implemented a number of improvements to our ePermitting software, Acela.
Continued to train staff and customers and create all types of new online permitting activities.
Our draft work plan going forward, and I apologize.
I'm going very quickly here, much more quickly than I would like,
but just recognizing the time and the public interest.
Our goal is to continue to maintain fast turnaround times.
And again, we're not cutting corners there,
but we are trying to be as efficient as possible
and achieve our performance measures
that are outlined in the work plan,
implement new accounting, human resources,
and timekeeping software.
And this is countywide,
but of course something that we're engaged in.
Continue and improve coordination among our divisions in the Sheriff's Office, as I mentioned, as well as state agency on marijuana-related complaints.
And what we'll begin to see in the year ahead are the first annual reporting requirements to make sure that the businesses are operating in compliance with their approved land use decisions.
Continuing to participate with DEQ in the pursuit of groundwater protection solutions in southern Deschutes County, establish and achieve new performance measures,
measures, such as 95% of those with ATT, these are the alternative treatment system, septic
systems that they're keeping up with their reporting requirements, as well as maintaining
the operations of their system so that they're performing as intended, and increasing the
number of permits submitted electronically up to 25% if we can achieve that.
Long-range planning, what a lot of folks may be interested in.
And we have in process now, floodplain text amendments.
The planning commission's continued public hearing on those is scheduled for next Thursday
a week from tomorrow on June 22 in this room at 5.30 if people are interested in participating
in that process.
And that one is in process.
Revisiting the county's lot of record verification process, as we've already discussed.
We are going to meet with the board next week.
Evaluating marijuana regulations, this has been tentatively programmed for the
for the fall, approximately one year after the program has been in place.
Support opportunities to provide affordable housing,
initiating process to reevaluate agricultural land designations,
continuing to coordinate with cities and unincorporated communities on new
and updated community plans, area plans, administering the CLG grant,
the certified local government grant for historic preservation,
developing a Goal 11 exception template for property owners or organizations
that may want to create smaller goal-leven exception areas such as around Oregon Water Wonderland,
near Sun River, near the city of Lopine and others, initiating outdoor mass-gathering permit text amendments.
We've been coordinating with legal counsel on these for some time.
And this is just a snapshot of some of these, coordinating with Redmond on a UGB expansion for a large-lawed industrial site,
which we hope is forthcoming by the fall.
The Board has approved, or the Budget Committee has approved, hiring of a new senior long-range
planner.
This is important.
For us, with our existing long-range planning staff, we're able to perform a lot of ongoing
annual projects, duties, and coordination, such as housekeeping text amendments.
These are minor fixes to the code, growth management coordination with cities.
We're involved in population forecasting, legislative reviews, such as during the
of the session, maintaining and approving tax tracking systems, the CLG grant, we serve
on a number of committees throughout the region, often a very common role for counties to participate
in.
We provide staff support, as the Board knows, to the Planning Commission, the Historic
Landmarks Commission, the Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the Mitigation Enhancement
Committee, Project Wildfire, and others.
In addition to that, with our existing staffing, we're able to take on two
two to three minor projects or one project really at a time with a new senior long-range
planner we will be able to take on an additional two to three major projects annually such
as agricultural lands evaluation, affordable housing, or initiating a new community plan
or comprehensive plan for an area.
So it really adds significant capacity for us.
Our planning commission and historic landmarks commission's recommended approval of the
work plan.
One key issue, and I know there are a number of people here that are interested
interested in this topic is to add to the work plan a project to consider and evaluate
whether to develop a grading ordinance. I'm sure you might hear from folks this morning
that don't want to just to consider and evaluate it once they're going to ask the county to
do it. The Pontic Commission's recommendation was to consider and evaluate it. Add Sisters
Country to the list of community plans to be initiated or updated and both commissions
felt strongly about this and supporting it. We don't have a Sisters Country plan
now and Sisters is going to kick off a visioning process in the fall and they'd
like for the county to be involved in that area and to look at the sister's
country in a broader area and that area has not yet been defined could be the
school district could be the zip code could be another area that we would
discuss and convene a panel of water experts this is a planning commission
recommendation for their benefit as well as for the community's benefit to
discuss water resource and conservation issues related to land use growth and
development. The board options are to close or continue the hearing today
and if the hearing is closed to discuss and approve the work plan as
proposed, and what is not in the version that you have, but I just want to clarify that
we recommend it be included, is the lot of record verification project, or is modified
by the board today or next week. I can't emphasize enough that just because a plot
project is either on or not on the work plan, that it's we're either going to take
it on or not. It's really a guide that we work together on, staff and the board.
the board throughout the year and the board provides the direction to staff
before we initiate or kick off any project. So lightning round of a presentation
on that I'm happy to turn it back over to the board answer any of your questions
or the public or public hearing.
So as we go back to item three on the permitting
code enforcement and operations well that I would like us to have a
conversation that looks at how we are applying code enforcement to our new regulations around
marijuana, and right now we have voluntary compliance.
We have a number of individuals who have gone through the process and are good neighbors,
and we have some that are still operating outside of the law.
And so will this give us an opportunity to talk about maybe taking a different approach
to our how we handle a lighter touch on code enforcement to maybe strengthen that balance
that we're trying to seek between those that are operating correctly and code enforcement
to me is more, you know, you have trash next door, you have, you know, something accidentally
built my fence on my neighbor's yard, you know, or property or, you know, just different
things that you, we try to bring people into compliance.
Will this offer us an opportunity to think differently about that for this particular issue?
It will, and we propose, and Lori and I have spoken about this recently along with the Sheriff's Department,
is to conduct a work session with the Board.
Hopefully this month, depending on schedules, that we can begin to have that conversation in the very near future
about how we approach code enforcement with so many inquiries and evaluations of what's legal, what's not,
and how do we proceed with enforcement.
This is kind of what makes between blatant disregard for the law and I have an issue on
my property.
It's a nuisance.
I need it.
Let's make sure to include the district attorney's office in that also.
And the sheriff's.
Yeah.
We will do so.
That would be great.
Okay.
Other questions before we go for public testimony?
All right.
So we have a lot of record on the list and we also have the grading and sister's
country to be added as well.
So I have 12 individuals who are interested in sharing their thoughts with us, and again,
I would ask if it's on the list, you love it, please let us know.
And it's not the time to let us know what you don't like about something that's for
another day.
Today is, do you want us to take a peek at it and keep it on the work plan?
So I have, looks like Dr. Brown, and then on, I believe, and on deck is Mr. McGinnis.
And the protocol is, please state your name for the record, and the floor is yours.
Yes, I'm Dr. Charlie Brown. I told them to use the academic initials, but in this case
I think perhaps it's appropriate. The doctorate is in Costing Psychology, Master's Degree,
and Rehab. My first contact with Marijuana was about 1960, an internship at a Costing
Center of Major University, a young professor came in who was having difficulty acknowledging
the impact of marijuana on the stability of the state.
I thought it was interesting in looking back over 50 years how much contact as a non-user
I have had with the product. Subsequently, I've been a landlord to a testing lab specific
to marijuana. I was amazed at the difficulty in testing for the amount of marijuana and
various products, the cost of the equipment and the technology involved, most difficult.
I have friends in both law enforcement and mental health in this county and have continued
to be aware of the implications involved.
I'm certainly for, to the extent that it's legal, freedom of use of products and business,
keeping in mind the old adage that your freedom to swing your arm ends at the point of my
knows and by that I mean we don't really know too much about what the impact of
marijuana is in many areas. We have almost no solid information with the
impact on groundwater. We have a rather unique situation in this county being an
old irrigation district manager of the amount of surface water that potentially can and
sometimes is contaminated by various products.
And we don't have any feeling at all for what that is.
And we know from considerable research that the implication of marijuana use, particularly
tied with alcohol, we simply cannot measure.
So that's always forefront in my mind as I'm driving down a crowded road, and I understand
and there's going to be bigger crowds coming.
What I would like to say is I want
to encourage the Commission to go very slowly and very
cautiously in that I think there is much more that we do not
know than what we do know about this product, how it's used,
and what the impact is going to be on this area.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Brown.
Mr. McGinnis, just one moment.
And then I have Ms. Patterson, please.
Chairwoman Baney, commissioners, my name is Tim McGinnis.
My wife and I own 80 Acres on Collins Road here in Tummelo.
I believe my comments today relate to the marijuana regulations,
which is part of your plan for the future year.
Number one, I believe it was probably an oversight in your regulations when you processed them
that you did not put in a 1,000 foot setback for county and city parks.
It is a 1,000 setback for national parks, national monuments, and state parks.
It is unbelievable that a city park or a county park is not treated the same way.
I specifically reference Tillicum Park, which many people in the county do not recognize, is a city park.
It's located on Couch Market Road and it is defined as a known children's activity center.
It is very clear that marijuana cannot be used, grown or used within 1,000 feet of a children's
activity center.
I think this should be brought up prior to the review of the marijuana regulations.
I think it should be dealt with today or tomorrow by you commissioners.
Secondly,
I do not believe we in the county understand whether you're issuing use permits
for the growth and growing of marijuana to the individual or to the property.
I think it makes a great deal of difference as to whether it's on the property, to the
property, or to the individual.
We have had two of your conditional use permit individuals die in the last several weeks, and I as a member of the community would prefer that the applications granted to those people be taken away.
Third,
I believe that the security of the population of this community is not presently being served properly by the county, including the sheriff's department and the county commissioners, unfortunately.
We know, whether we want to omit it or not, there is a criminal element associated with drugs.
We have people here in this county today growing marijuana outside of the law.
And it is not being taken into consideration, nor is any action being taken.
I think your regulations need to change that.
And I think the county should be willing to finance additional deputies to enforce the law.
Finally, I believe council should review for you during your regulation review
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which I believe you're in violation of. Thank you.
We're going to hold our applause until the end so that we can all share in that love.
So let's go on to Ms. Wills.
And we have Ms. Peterson, Gretchen, oh, hi, please, yes, yes, and then Diana Wills is
after that.
Please join us here.
Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you for hearing me.
On May the 12th, this, I'm just going to read a letter that I wrote to.
What was your name, ma'am?
Diana.
Excuse me, Diana Wills.
I live in Seron City.
And my letter was given to Dr. or John Hummel, our district attorney.
I'm writing this letter in regards to an illegal marijuana grow in our subdivision
in Seron City.
The marijuana is at 63390 Seron Drive.
unless then, well the actual acreage is 2.06. There are four large
greenhouses and a large shop that is enclosed. The owner of the property is
Michael Bradford, who is renting the property out. We are familiar with this
particular case. Okay, my question is a complaint was given to the
just shoots county development. They gave Mr. Bradford a, told him he had a week
and they were coming out to do an inspection. At the inspection, my son,
who lives next door, tried to get him to measure because it's less than a
thousand feet from his property line to where this marijuana grow is. He
you wouldn't even measure. So of course that probably did not go into the report. Needless
to say there's also a bus stop and Mr. McGinnis talked about children being should be not
close to that. A bus stops right in front of this property and there's an eight-year-old
girl that was across. I just feel like the district attorney, the sheriff's department,
nothing is being done. They're still growing. On Sunday evening as I drove by,
there were lights in the greenhouse. And this all started back in March. It is now
June 14th. I believe our law enforcement needs to be enforced. There are laws
that they are breaking, and it is an illegal, an illegal growth.
Okay.
Thank you for hearing me.
Yes.
Well, sometimes what can't be said is the process in which it is going forward.
And so I would leave that to the district attorney's office, but they are keenly aware
of what is going on, and I very much appreciate you bringing that to our attention today.
So I am taking from your testimony.
You want us to keep this on the work plan?
I want to say one thing, it is in the long term and the plan itself to really look at
the overall program, the regulations in the coming year.
But we also have, in response to your situation, others have asked for a joint work session
with the Sheriff's Office, Community Development, and the District Attorney's Office, so we
better because we are hearing complaints we're trying to figure out what we're
supposed to do so what we don't really know what they're doing so we have
scheduled that actually before we get to the the bigger evaluation of the
regulations just in terms of when something you know what's the process so
that has been for those of you that are that's an you know an issue that isn't
something we have scheduled I think fairly soon. Could we come to that work
session? All of our work sessions. There are always public meetings. Thank you for your best.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Okay.
Ms. Peterson, and then we have Karen Mitchell.
Hi.
Question.
Peterson, Deschutes County resident.
Hundreds of county residents, along with investors, county officials, and a marijuana
advisory commission, spent thousands of hours attending meetings, presenting testimony,
and establishing regulations regarding marijuana in Deschutes County.
And I would like to thank the county commissioners, Nick Lelac, and others for their hard
work throughout this process. I am concerned that this contentious issue may be reopened this
year. Recently there were attempts in Salem to change the marijuana legislation in a way that
could have had serious impacts here in Deschutes County. This amendment did not pass, but I
worry that a very powerful and well-funded industry with a lot to gain will whittle away
to undermine the hard-earned compromise that resulted from public input here. Will this
happen here in Dushitz County as well as statewide. I urge you to consider that if you reopen
this issue this year, it should not involve a rehashing of all the established rules that
have been put together on land use for growing and processing marijuana. The community has
really been beaten up by this and is exhausted by the entire experience. And I think that
people on both sides of the issue need stability in the rules to be able to plan for the
future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, I have Keith Mitchell after Karen, please. You
can sit together. I mean, depending on how things are going.
Yes, all right. Good. Good.
My name is Karen Mitchell. Excellent. And we live in the same subdivision as Diana,
so I won't rehash that part, and respectfully, my pushback, our pushback, is the enforcement
of the laws.
So I appreciate your question, Commissioner Vaney, as to going forward with the CDD gentlemen,
going forward, how will those be enforced, because, you know, the agenda is to look
at just not just the regulations, but how to enforce regulations.
When you've got them on the books and you've got blatant disregard for the law, minimum
five acres, you've got it on two acres, not in Hooper greenhouses, it's in Hooper greenhouses,
lights glowing all night, smell, I mean, told by DEA agents that there's no permit there,
well over a hundred plants, yet we're going on three months and we see nothing happening,
it makes us feel as citizens that our county has been hijacked.
So we appreciate the opportunity to just say the enforcement of the laws is what we are most keenly concerned about.
Great.
And what I was going to say is, I mean, a lot of this has already been said, so I'm going to be brief on this.
that if we don't want to make these laws any easier, the rules for these dope growers, we
don't want to make it easier. If it's too late to opt out, which that's what I would
have liked to see in the first place, but you can't ask these people that are putting
in for a permit to have a grow to jump through all the hoops and do everything they have
to do to get it and then turn your back on a hundred illegal ones out there.
I mean, what's the incentive for these people to do what you're asking them to do?
So you really need to just enforce the laws and the regulations that are on the books
now.
And if I could just add one little caveat and that is the safety factor involved
which the gentleman before spoke of when we were told by a DEA agent that large
sums of cash are kept on these properties because it's known fact they can't
have business bank accounts so they're known you know I mean it's a ripe spot
for somebody that wants
You know, through theft or other means, approach
these properties, and they're not going to drive
up the driveway and knock on the front door. They're going to go across our neighboring
properties. So it's a danger to the whole community. Thank you.
Thank you. You are heard by us, and, you know, those that have gone through the process
have shared very similar thoughts in terms of they don't want to see that either.
So you might hear some of that in the testimony today as well.
Okay, so I take it, leave it on the work plan.
All right, okay.
So next we have Andrew Anderson, and on deck we have Lindsay Pate.
You all know me.
My name is Andrew Anderson.
I'm on the Schuetz County Farm Bureau Board.
I was on the marijuana advisory committee for the county,
and I'm a licensed ULCC producer and retailer
with three retail locations in the state.
I would like to see the planning being revisited.
I won't disagree with any of the people that have spoke against it.
Enforcing rules against the illegal grows will be very, very hard
because the Sheriff's Office could go out and bust 25 of them
and 50 more will pop up the next week.
You know, where there's a demand, which there is a demand,
you know, it will be fueled.
And it is really rough going through the process that we went through
with the county and spending all the money and equipment
and having other people operate illegally,
make more money than us, not pay taxes,
all those things, not have security.
So we would like to see the same thing.
We want fair rules across the board.
The things that I wanted to cover were the land use process
but the only county in the state to have that.
I think that needs to be looked at.
The biggest thing for me is the neighbor notification.
We had a case with the Rubio appeal that was turned down for their neighbors,
which from what I've learned have the neighbors that appealed have a non-farm business
in an EFU zone without a conditional use permit.
I believe a complaint was filed for that recently.
You know, so we have non-farming people living on EFU that are stopping farming in an EFU
zone, you know, and that resulted from the neighborhood modification process.
You know, so now you have an illegal business that's non-farmed in the farm zone and they've
stopped but somewhat from farming, you know, which the exclusive farming zone is specifically
for farming.
And I also think we need to look at in the county, especially in Tumla, because
it's EFU, RR, MUA, how our zoning is done,
that the EFU needs to be farming,
and it shouldn't be spread throughout with multiple use
or residential with those things,
because it causes a lot of problem,
not just in cannabis, but in all agriculture.
Some of the other things, the publishing floor plans,
I think which has kind of been dealt with,
I don't know if that's stopped or not,
but that's a public safety hazard.
The concerns that the people have about security risks,
Well, we have the same, you know, when you publish our floor plans for our farms or our
stores or anything like that, it gives a roadmap.
It's like, you know, banks don't do that.
They wouldn't give you a roadmap to their vault, you know.
So that's a concern.
The lighting rules, I'm pretty sure you are aware, you know, State Farm Bureau has
already said they violate state statute and right to farm.
I recently had the tax assessor come out to my farm, you know, they want to raise
my taxes and I'm fine.
I mean, my retail stores pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on state taxes alone, and
I believe in paying taxes, but what the county did with our farm was we're limited to not
even use all of our greenhouses that we had built because of our parcel size.
I'm going to use the lot to use one one hundredth of the size of my property, which is half
the state limit, you know, and we had already built more greenhouses than that.
So I'm going to essentially start, you know, they want to raise my taxes pretty
pretty substantially like $7,000 to $15,000 a year on an EFU deferral, you know, and I'm
going to pay those taxes on greenhouses that you're telling me that I can't use, you know,
so that's a pretty clear issue, you know, if you're telling me I can't use them because
of your own county rules you put in and then you want me to pay a substantial amount of
tax on that, you know, I guess that's kind of a problem in my opinion because they're
useless if we can't use them, you know.
The other thing was the square footage limits, you know, being able to use one
one-hundredth of our acreage, you know, when the state limits is we can have 40,000 square
feet but on my 45 acre farm we can only have 20,000 which is less than half an acre, you
know, is kind of confusing and, you know, ultimately it's just going to make us purchase
more farms, go through the land use process again, build more greenhouses which I think
has a larger impact, you know, you're going to have more neighbors with more farms,
you know, than you would if we didn't have those limits and we don't wholesale
to anyone else. We only grow and sell for our own retail stores, so I don't think my limits
are super reasonable considering I only have three stores. We're about to open a fourth,
you know, and I can't hardly supply my own stores based on those limits. And yeah, that's
all I got. Thank you for your consideration.
I do want to just, since we were big on facts being accurate, it was not a neighbor
notification that denied the application that you mentioned. It was different than that.
But it was how they found out about it, how the neighbors found out about the case. They
wouldn't have known without the neighbor notification part.
Right. Yes, absolutely. Okay, very good.
I have a quick question. I understand you're telling me, were you – you said it's
hard to enforce, but do you favor enforcement of illegal grows?
Absolutely. I mean, we jump through the hoops, you know, I mean, it's insane how much taxes
in our retail stores that are on our farm pays, you know, and, you know, to have illegal
grows that don't do that, they don't have security, they don't have anything, you know.
I mean, we have over 100 cameras on my phone between my stores and my farm that I can
see at all times that alert me if anyone's there at night or anything, you know. I mean,
our security systems are so state of the art compared to banks even. I mean, I can
hear what happens in every camera and talk back through each camera you know
so our security systems of the state requires are pretty advanced and I'm
just going to go with Tyler next I can't read your last name thank you I'm sorry
Tyler hi Lindsay please go right ahead hi can you hear me yes so my name is
Lindsay Pate I live on my farmland in rural Deschutes County between Redmond
and terribon and I haven't approved recreational license land use for our farmland. It would
be pretty easy for me in my position right now to not speak to this and not put myself
out here but I made a commitment two years ago to support my community which includes
cannabis professionals. I absolutely agree and ditto what I'm hearing from Andrew which
is that we want to have regulated grows and we don't want to be competing, whether it's
gray, white or black sales with anybody who's not registered and not following the rules.
So I support us revisiting these rules. That's the main thing I'll keep this short. My biggest
concern is that we had a very long opt out and then we are following that up with
a very lengthy application process and I would encourage you to research what happened
after the early sales that ended in 2016 and the implications that occur to producers that
are still operating under medical regulations.
I would encourage you to look at it because coupling the lengthy application process with
this lengthy opt-out is causing a lot of original producers to go out of business
and when I say out of business we're talking transparent business.
It's important that we set a precedent that original producers who have been operating
have an opportunity to participate before their businesses go under because there's
no longer a marketplace for them to transparently make sales.
I really hope you can take a look at my testimony.
I've given you some specific concerns that I've had for a really long time and unfortunately
that was not really being heard.
And that is why I went to Salem when I did because when I go to Salem and
I talk about early sales and I talk about the implications on our marketplace. They
know what I'm talking about and they know how important it is to prevent original producers
from failing and to set a precedence that this can be transparent and regulated.
Thank you.
Thank you. And Tyler, sorry, I didn't know it was you. Good to see you. I was, I thought,
who's Tyler Negg?
It's okay, she'll like all you doctor. Just kidding, go ahead. Oh wait, sorry, before
Before you launch, I have Callahan.
Do I have CA...I'm sorry?
Candy, alright.
Okay, yes, that's candy.
Okay, excellent, you're next.
Thank you.
Please, Tyler, floor is yours.
Sure, thank you.
Well, good morning, commissioners and staff.
As Tammy said, my name is Tyler Neese.
I'm the government affairs director
for the Central Organ Association of Realtors.
I'm not going to talk about marijuana this morning,
But I'm going to talk about legal law of record, which you also haven't heard enough about,
right?
Our second favorite time.
Yeah, that's right.
But really specifically, I'm here this morning on behalf of COR and our members to express
support for staff's recommendation to include in this 17-18 work plan a project, as you
heard about earlier today, to revisit the legal law of record verification process.
We look forward to hearing in some more specific recommendations, whether that's in
terms of rates and process and how it looks moving forward in some further discussion
as part of the work session that you discussed earlier today.
It's an issue we've been hearing a lot about in the real estate community.
We get quite a few calls.
We've actually developed some forms.
We have sellers disclosure, a buyer's notice that we've put together and basically in
partnership with our legal counsel to get information out there and ensure that
our members are protected as well.
So it's something that we're keenly aware of.
And a staff, you know, to commend staff in Justiz County has been very helpful.
They have provided us with a lot of information and have helped us to get that information
out to our members.
But I think, you know, there's certainly some work that needs to be done in addressing
it, as you all know.
So just wanted to, again, basically support that inclusion in the work plan and moving
forward with that, also provide our organization as a resource if there's anything we
can do to weigh into the process or any expertise we can provide.
So thank you.
Well, I would say that your organization is an important one in terms of us helping us
to walk through this journey.
So any engagement you – our meetings are open to the public.
Please come if there are comments.
Really engage.
I know that you're members in terms of their own – opening their own businesses to
allow us to come in and do some forums and education.
Thank you for that.
So do look forward to continued partnership as we try to go through this process.
So thank you.
Since you do speak for your organization and there are a lot of re-liters, do you have
any feel yet from your members and things as to how many people you think this is affecting
or you're hearing about?
I think Peter and the community development staff probably have a better read on numbers.
I don't have solid figures on how many I can just kind of speak anecdotally.
that's certainly something we can always do is survey our members but I can
tell you you know it's almost every week now for the last you know a couple
months I've been talking to somebody who and a lot of times those calls are
just clarification like I said a lot of times I you know I serve as liaison
between the county to just kind of clarify their questions but a lot of
times what we're hearing is you know folks and this is what's included in
our disclosures is you know there may be a structure on the property they
thought it was only the lot of record talked with realtor at the other
weaker broker who was basically a transaction was held up because they had spoken with – basically
had spoken with the buyer's agent who had informed them that, you know, hey, you can't
move forward with the sale if it's not a legal law of record. That's – I wouldn't
advise that from a legal perspective. So we've seen sales being held up and things
of that nature. So it's becoming – I think it's gaining steam. You know, I can
say within our membership what we're running into more and more. I think especially
where it gets out. I don't have any, you know, hard numbers for you on that, but something
we could sort of do.
We've had, uh, at a prior meeting we had some testimony from at least, I recall, two
re-letters about specific transactions. Yeah.
Maybe we could get copies of your forms that you're working on just so you're, you know,
be interesting for us as commissioners. Maybe community development may already have them,
but it'd be interesting for the commissioners to have those, too, just to see what,
how those are being.
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I have those this morning. I can share them with reporters.
Thank you.
Excellent.
Thank you.
And before Candy, we have Julie Kissick.
Please.
It's on.
Okay.
Yep.
Perfect.
Hi.
My name is Candy Callahan.
Ben has been my home for the last 13 years, and I've seen Ben grow, kind of slow down
a little bit, and then overcome and take off with an amazing amount of growth.
When I first moved here, I was a raft guide and a white water raft guide and a snowboard
instructor.
My job was heavily dependent on growth in the area and tourism.
I now have a career and yet my career is still dependent on growth and tourism people coming to this area.
I'm with the Save the Law Organization and I just want you guys to know that we understand that growth in our community is needed, it's necessary, and it's healthy.
By coming to you and asking you to create a grading ordinance in the county, we're not asking to slow growth or stop growth.
We're just asking that it be done with thought, regulation, and rules behind it.
A grading ordinance can encompass many things.
Preservation of landscape, a tree protection program, and ordinance can help set rules that control erosion, sediment, unwanted runoff, as well as it would regulate land-disturbing activities such as stripping, mining, excavation, and harmful fill.
These ordinance are created to ensure adequate design while encouraging builders to preserve the natural landscape of land.
There are already numerous cities and counties in the state of Oregon that have grading ordinances
in place.
Those include the City of Bend.
To quote the City of Bend, a grading ordinance purpose is to promote public health, safety,
property, general welfare, aesthetics for the citizens of Bend by regulating clearing
Grading activities with land development included, but not limited to a
Natural clearing, brushing, excavating, and filling, or any other activity that disturbs the
topsoil. If this is already in place in the city of Bend, it seems natural that Deschutes
County would also want to protect and regulate its natural assets. Again, I'd like to make
it very clear that we're not against development. We just want to ensure that it's being done
with thought, planning, and regulation, so that central Oregon landscapes that we all
love is not just being clear cut or bulldozed down by the profit of a few individuals.
Once something is done to the land, it's very difficult to undo.
I do appreciate all of the time and effort that you guys have put into this,
and I do hope that you have time to put this as a priority for the next year.
Thank you.
Okay.
Before we leave, we have Mr. Stillson.
Bob?
All right.
And that's the last individual that I have signed up for this part of the agenda.
So if we have more, I need your cards.
Nancy, I indicated on her earlier card that she wanted to speak on both sides.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay.
All right.
Please.
So we were actually, with you guys last year, we made a presentation because we had a very
big question.
We were concerned that if somebody purchased a lava field zoned as RR10 property, how
much lava rock could they crush and remove before surface mining regulations would
kick in?
And I had actually conversed with Nick on emails and said, what is that amount?
And he could not give me an answer for that.
And we came before you, all of you, last year with that issue.
And in fact, Nick said during that meeting last year, and I'm quoting him,
some of the residents have really valid concerns that we don't have answers to.
The county does not have a grading and drainage ordinance today.
And so for the property owner to come in and begin to clear their site, there is that ability today and the question that I know people have is how much.
And that can't be answered for unincorporated to shoots County rural residential properties right now.
So we fully support having the County planners look at and hopefully develop a grading ordinance.
We feel that having these parameters clearly define protects everybody,
not just local residences but developers because there's a well-defined parameters,
as well as the county itself because that would prevent issues getting escalated to the point of litigation.
So we feel this protects not only people within Deschutes River Woods,
but all over unincorporated Deschutes County.
And in fact, the only opposition we've had to this proposal in every meeting that we've
been to is that the state already regulates this so it's not needed for the county.
However, if that was the case, then cities would not have grading ordinance,
nor would other counties have grading ordinances such as Washington County.
And the fact is, if the purpose of having local government is so that we can create our own rules
and enforce those rules instead of waiting for Salem to come in when it becomes a situation
that's become too late. The county planning staff had said repeatedly, and Nick repeated
that today, that they take very serious citizen input. And for the last year, we have been
providing oral testimony, letters of support, participation at planning meetings, and actually
we have quite a few people here that aren't speaking, but also support the fact of not
only evaluating a grading ordinance on the county's work plan, but hopefully implementing
one.
Thank you.
We have voices heard because it was a recommendation by the Planning Commission to us as well,
so thank you for staying engaged in the process.
Thank you for your time.
You bet.
Mr. Stilson, just one moment.
I'd ask Ms. Gould-Nancy to come back up, please.
Thank you.
My name's Bob Stolson.
I live on Paiute Circle in Deschutes River Woods.
Our Deschutes River Woods community,
we're not a special interest group,
but we are a special community.
And we believe a grading ordinance
is needed to protect our special community.
If Julie has not been able to overwhelm you
with our convincing argument over the past year. I'm here to kill you with
kindness.
No matter how our issue works out or gets resolved I would like to
thank you all again and the County Development Commission for the time
it patience you've given us the past year. In a time when a lack of
civility and decorum is all too prevalent on the national scene, Deschutes County has
proven to be the opposite. The county will always be overworked, underfunded, and struggling
to catch up, especially given the explosive growth in Central Oregon. However, at least
our process, while it is cumbersome at times, it seems to be alive and well here.
And we do sincerely thank you for that.
Thank you very much.
Okay, just one moment.
Mr. Kuhn, I'd like to ask you back.
Please.
Hello, Nancy Gould.
I'm a Deschutes County resident.
For your work plan, I do believe the grading review is warranted.
I would go slow on the marijuana review.
Putting it on your fall agenda would be faster than even a one-year review,
and it appears as though the county has work to do with its own code enforcement.
And I'm a little surprised that it needs to consult with the DA or the sheriff's office.
The county's land use rules are what code enforcement also reviews, not just miscellaneous trash or debris.
Land use rules and in particular conditions of approval.
And so code enforcement, I think, should rank very high on your work plan.
As you saw, a 25% increase according to the stats on the PowerPoint with Nick Laylack.
Code enforcement is an increasing issue, and that's predominantly because what is being approved in the community comes with a litany list of conditions.
And so it really does befall our community government to be
sure that the conditions of approval that it's creating for whatever the land use is that it's approving are actually put into play.
And I spent time on the Code Enforcement Text Amendment, several long-winded meetings,
that actually provide your staff the ability to create a code enforcement complaint themselves.
So it used to just be Joe Q. Neighbor.
The onus was all on that individual who had to identify themselves and bring the case forward,
provide the documentation, et cetera, et cetera.
Now with the new Code Enforcement Text Amendment you have, it's very much in your own camp.
And so those of us who partake in an application that comes with it, a condition or several conditions of approval,
we are looking to our government to implement the land use rules that its state are needed.
And I think that comes to play whether it's marijuana or whether it's a solar
farm or a destination resort or a non-farm dwelling or any one of these
individual things. So I would put code enforcement high on your list.
In the past code enforcement has been tied to CDD fees and you heard me just
at the previous discussion about fees, bring to the attention that we need to at least charge.
Because if you don't have your code enforcement staff, you have a great excuse
for why you can't actually get condition of approval 1 through 10 implemented.
Then the other thing I'd like to share with you is this continuing pressure to be reviewing non-agricultural lands.
I think that's been beat over the bush.
It's ad nauseam that needs to be removed from this work, this work plan.
And I do appreciate Andy Anderson's comments about being assessed for a greenhouse that he can't grow in.
And I might just share something. He could take his greenhouse down.
he could grow another agricultural crop in his greenhouse.
But once you make improvements on your land,
the prerogative of our community to tax the improvements
is part of the revenue that we're creating.
And just to say, hey, now you have to change the entitlements
so I can perfect this to my particular use that today is not allowed,
I think that puts the community in a very interesting situation.
A little bit like destination resort saying, hey, you have to save us even though the model is no longer there.
So the iteration on the marijuana production is in its infancy here.
I encourage the government, your government to move slowly.
I know that you are also somewhat conflicted
because you are acting as a banker for revenue
through the course of the lease of your industrial lands in Lapine.
And I think it's very important that you recognize this link
and that you come forward in your disclosures when you deal with that topic.
And I think I've mentioned that by email, and that's not come to light in the course of this public hearing.
We have not taken action on that under the purview of the city of LaPine.
I need your testimony to stay to what we have on the work plan.
So in terms of moving fast and putting marijuana regulations on the work plan,
I don't think that is warranted at this time.
And I do believe that the Bend Metropolitan Parks and Rec District Park Telecom,
since Deschutes County does not have its own parks department,
that park adds to the matrix.
So whilst it might be considered a city park it does play that role in our community
Thank you. Thank you
Mr. Kuhn and last we have Ken Katzra, please
Good morning again. Hi. No, good afternoon. Yeah, we're trying to wrap up here. We have four four more items five
Mr. Henderson, I'd like to
comment on your comment about the
CDD having to do the code enforcement. You mentioned that this past year and in this budget it
seems to be that you have enough funds to handle all the complaints. Unfortunately that's
not always been the case. There are many years in the past when the CDD would be concerned
about that. That's my rebuttal to you, sir. Thank you.
Well, yeah, since you were responding, that may be the case. I wasn't here then. I'm just, you were calling for fees to make.
And I'm just saying I don't think that's really the problem now, currently. Yeah, there was, leaner years.
Good. Mention of the text amendment was brought up, and I would like to thank you for your help in getting that completed, commissioners.
That tax amendment took 13 years to get through you, through to you so that you could pass
it, took numerous trips back to the builders, back to the realtors to get their buy-in on
it, and it was not an easy process.
It was postponed from your schedule many times because CDD didn't think it was important
enough.
but it is, and thank you.
The question is, is growth good?
I can give you numerous reasons why it's not,
and I will quickly refer to the concept that when my mother died,
during her lifetime, the population of the world doubled,
and it doubled again.
It's more than doubled and doubled,
not quite again during my lifetime.
What is the projected growth of Deschutes County?
Have you done long-range planning on the growth of Deschutes County?
When are you going to say, hey, growth, maybe we don't want it?
If the population growth continues at the rate that it is in the past several years,
there will be one square meter for every, on the dry land surface of the earth,
for every person in 500 years.
That's ridiculous. We're going to die at something else, aren't we?
When I come to you, I talk to you about things like the value of my property.
I'd like to call to the attention of the folks in the
This has to do with bringing to the attention of the county things that need to be addressed
through text amendments. And I'd like to call your attention to ORS 105.464. This is the seller's
property disclosure statement. And on that seller's disclosure property statement it says
As number nine, full disclosure by sellers, are there any other material defects affecting
this property or its value that a prospective buyer should know about?
If you are the owner of property that is right next to a grow or a couple that has
assaulted you or that has inflicted other types of harm on you, I guarantee you
you will not get anything close to the value of the property that you want to get if you
were selling to somebody like you. Now, if you want to sell to another grower, maybe you'll
get more. But I caution you to look for the value of your property when you consider whether
or not you want to grow next to them.
Lights in a wildlife area overlay zone. I've seen
applications for a grow in a wildlife area overlay zone.
We went to civil court in 2000 because the other party in our cluster development had
their lights on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year for two years.
Mr. Anderson came out to our property, looked, did you come out?
I can't remember.
I know that you were concerned about it and you came out you had somebody come out and they did an inspection and the county code
did not
Deal with the situation of the kind of lights that were being shined in a wildlife area overlay zone
The judge said I can't force you to turn off the lights, but I can
Find you for harassment. He'd find them for harassment
There needs to be a text amendment dealing with light in a wildlife area overlay zone
that is sufficient to stop a gross situation where there are greenhouses illuminating kind of light that they do.
And I sure hope you don't let razor wire in a wildlife area overlay where fences have to be,
what is it, 18 inches and no more than whatever it is, 40-some inches?
That's crazy.
So you'd like us to keep that on the work plan?
Yes, please.
Okay.
Because what we'll do is encapsulate all those pieces.
Today's just shouldn't be...
Good.
One other issue that I have here is the WHCMP plan.
That's the Wildlife Habitat Conservation Management Plan.
again. I've seen an application for a grow that has one of these tax deferrals. If you
don't take away that tax deferral for somebody that's growing marijuana with grow lights,
that's crazy.
And we'll take that under advisement.
Please let me check my notes to see if I've missed them.
Okay, but you're well over the three minutes and we are.
I know, but you let more people go over five minutes while I was watching.
OK.
You've tried that before.
When I complained about the comments that CDD made in our hearing,
I filed it with CDD.
I sent an email and all that kind of stuff.
I think I copied you guys and there was no response.
They didn't even they didn't even communicate with me about my complaint.
That's pretty shoddy. I wonder if they even put it on their little record as somebody that was complaining.
I also object to the name CDD, Community Development Department.
CDD is supposed to be responsible for protecting the wildlife habitat, and they are not. Thank you.
Yes, thank you. I very much appreciate your input. I'm just trying to keep it focused toward today's.
Bring us home.
I'll be 30 seconds or less. Thank you, CDD, for all your work on this. It's gotten more complicated every year, hasn't it?
I just have one question, which is, is records staying open or are you planning to close it today?
I think we were hoping to close it today, but if we haven't had a request to leave it open,
you can always make one, and then we can determine whether or not...
You can communicate it with me if you could open it.
Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay, so now we have to...
Sorry to open that can of worms.
No. Thank you. It's certain like a week, two days, an hour. I'm kidding.
Week?
Okay. All right.
For written records? That one?
Written record only.
Written record only. Okay.
That'd be fine.
All right. So, great.
And this, yes, Mr. McGinnis, please, we have to have you on the record.
Is that, yep,
very quickly.
And then you're going to have to beg forgiveness for all the other people I'm not going to allow that for.
30 seconds. I believe the ruling is that if you become before the court, you come clean
of hands.
Yes.
And I believe all of us in this room should come clean of hands. As an example, wearing
a hat in a public meeting like this is disgraceful. And you as the chairman.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm Mr. Beginnes. I am not offended, so I'm
going to be, I'm going to be fine with that. Okay. Okay. Great. I have a request for, let's
wrap this, okay, we're going to wrap this part up. So Nick, it sounds like we'd like
to, I'm going to close the oral portion of the hearing.
Well, as you close it, I'd like to thank everybody for the comments. I mean, this
is it. This is where people are sharing their passions, their thoughts, their
positions. You know, we are dealing with very diverse input on many subjects right now. So
thank you so much for joining us.
Can you catch us at it? We're going to take a quick break.
We're going to leave the record open and you'll be able to just tell us whatever you
want.
Oh, I had stated his name. So it's just we it's a formality that we often get
request to leave the record open for further – to bring further information in.
I don't think it matters.
The CDD work plan.
It's the work plan – the work plan in general.
Okay.
All right.
Nick, we'd like to close – I'm closing the oral portion of the testimony, and
we'd like to leave the record open for a week.
I – do you have pieces that –
Oh, I didn't know if he was going to say something then we can say something briefly or whatever.
I'm just here to provide support.
I would like to add the grading ordinance this year to take a look at that.
And so I guess that I don't know what I'm asking for.
Commissioner, it is proposed.
And the Planning Commission's recommendation is on page 31 of the draft plan that you have before you.
And it's the language I proposed on the slide.
Consider and evaluate whether to develop a grading ordinance.
Okay.
And then we can determine how lengthy all that.
Okay.
Please.
Well, yeah, the scenario.
I was thinking about a property.
If I went in my backyard with an excavator and just started loading up trucks and selling the dirt,
where is that line?
So it would be good to understand what are the current parameters.
So doing some research along those lines I support.
It doesn't mean we go forward and take action.
It means that we I want to further better understand the issue and so that's going to require time.
So having that on the work plan would be great.
So and then my thought, you know, great job on the work plan in terms of the amount of detail, the background, you know, the measurement tools.
And if other people here today as citizens or taxpayers where I've seen it, it's quite thorough.
And I think my goal would be that there's a few things I'd like to flesh out a little more that the substance of them.
I know we have that option to do it next year, but I view this as kind of the one time of
year that we kind of give guidance to your department or get involved with a specific.
And so, you know, there's several that we've talked about here that I'd like to maybe suggest
at our next meeting some changes in the wording or a little different wording or just so
it's kind of focused and somewhat in response to testimony heard, but some somewhat just
in terms of issues that I think we've been talking about with regard to affordable
housing, the re-designation, the review we've talked about for, you know, maybe it's a little
more targeted. So that would be my hope in our next whenever we get to discover discussing it to
kind of work through that. But great job. And thank you for every all the testimony today.
And it's really interesting to hear them, you know, people's thoughts on this. It's
important. Thank you. So I will we need to continue this to a date certain. And I'm
going to look to you to which one makes the most sense.
The board could consider closing the record next Tuesday, so it's just shy of a week
at five o'clock so that it's available for you to discuss next Wednesday, the 21st,
on your agenda.
And given that it's not a formal land use proceeding, it doesn't have to be formally
– I mean, you can continue it, but what I'm hearing is that deliberations would
occur as early as next Wednesday.
Correct.
Okay.
Sound good?
All right.
Thank you very much.
Thank you everyone.
Well, we're going to take a break and you're welcome to, I can't have you holler anything
else out, but you can meet me in the hallway.
All right.
On to item number 19, public hearing consideration of signature of document number 2017-337.
And we are also going to do the opening comments for the public hearing for document
number 2017-338.
So please, go right ahead.
Do you want to do the, so this is a public hearing on an outdoor mass gathering.
Thank you.
Application 24717000311-OMG and 00398-OMG.
Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record, the staff report,
and the testimony and evidence.
Thank you presented at this hearing.
And following the hearing, if the record should be left open.
The hearing will be conducted in the following order.
Staff will provide a brief report.
Applicant will present testimony and evidence.
Opponents and proponents will testify and present evidence.
Other interested parties will then present testimony or evidence.
Applicants present rebuttal testimony.
Staff will be afforded an opportunity to make closing remarks.
And Cynthia, I will turn it over to you.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Cynthia with Community Development Department.
And now that we've cleaned the room out,
we can breathe a little easier because we're not dealing with land use planning.
However, I will make reference to it a little bit.
That opening statement is our land use opening statement,
but it was there for a template for the board of county ministers to work from.
I'll cover the Newberry event first.
Newberry event festival to defeat MS and Doug and Gloria Watt are the applicant.
Code overview, let me get through here.
I'm going to summarize a little bit of the code real quick.
I know we're running late and a little bit of the proposal.
Title 18, the county zoning ordinance is not applicable in this case.
Title 8, the county health and safety ordinance.
In particular, Chapter 8.16 of the county code regulates outdoor mass gathering permits.
At the state level, it's Oregon Revised Statue 433 that provides regulations for the outdoor mass gathering permits.
And in particular, I just want to point this out that ORS 433-750
safety requires the governing body, the Board of County Commissioners in this case, to issue
the outdoor mass gathering permit when the organizer demonstrates compliance with or
the ability to comply with the health and safety rules governing the outdoor mass gathering.
It's very ministerial, objective, cut and dry kind of approval here.
Title 22, our county procedures ordinance only applies in certain situations.
We do provide notice to the newspaper, public hearing notice.
And as a courtesy, we provide, as the planning division provides notice to the surrounding property owners
just so they know what's coming in their neighborhood.
We also provide notice to certain agencies.
And in this case, we've got the Newbury event.
They've been holding an annual music event for approximately four years on the subject property.
For the last three years, they've been issued an event permit, which is through the Risk
Management Department, for 2014, 15, and 16.
And this year, they want to jump up into the outdoor mass gathering permit category, which
means over 500 people and less than 3,000.
Their proposed attendance would be 750.
The festival occurs at 1-6685 and 1-6693.
sprake, loop, and lapiole provide a vicinity map in a minute.
This area is surrounded primarily by residential uses within the Lazy River South subdivision.
There are some larger forest and farm zone properties in the area undeveloped, including
public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM.
And the property is adjacent to the south to Quail Run Golf Course in the west of
the Little Dishoots River.
This is a general map just so you have reference if you can see it.
It's also in your packet.
And the event site is in red and there's additional parking sites.
I'm going to
go over some basics here. The outdoor mass gathering permits are regulated with hours of operation, health, sanitation, safety, they need a security plan, a control plan, a parking plan, all those things we look at with an outdoor mass gathering permit.
Permit. Regarding duration and attendance, an outdoor mass gathering permit can operate
no more than 10 days, and that includes setup, placement, storage, takedown, and everything
in between, including the festival. The Newbury event is asking for five days, July 20th
to the 24th. Site prep will start on July 20th, and cleanup will conclude on July 24th.
The actual Music and Art Festival will be on Friday, July 21st, being at 10 a.m.,
and ending around 8 Sunday, July 23rd.
There will be on-site camping opening on Thursday, July 23rd,
or sorry, July 20th, pardon me, patrons will leave by July 23rd.
There's no reference to music on Thursday,
just starting Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for music.
Also by definition, an outdoor mass gathering can have
a reasonably anticipated attendance more
than 500 persons in less than 3,000, as indicated previously, and this is over the course of
the event, so it's cumulative.
The Newberry event anticipates 750, which includes attendees, vendor staff, sound and
video staff, volunteers, traffic controllers, medical security, all the organizers.
All those are grouped into that 750.
There is a buffer there of 10%, so that is written into the draft permit.
But I think that brings it up to 800 odd people.
Hours of operation, an outdoor mass gathering cannot be conducted within 1,000 feet of any
residents between the hours of 12.01 and 9.00 a.m., so just after midnight, unless written
consent has been provided from neighboring property owners.
The Newberry event proposes amplified music to 10 p.m. and acoustic music to 1 p.m., which is kind of conflicting with their indication that they plan to follow the required sound requirements.
And then they also ask for an extension to midnight.
So it's a little unclear, but staff believes the extension may have been for amplified music to go to 12 midnight.
However, measured from the approximate location of the music stage, there's many homes within a thousand feet.
The closest being 350, and then at one, and I'll go back to that picture there, 1677 is the closest on Sprague Loop.
and then the additional are about 450 feet away. The applicant did not provide
written consent from surrounding property owners. In addition, I'd like to
mention that there were comments received regarding the noise levels of this
event and then complaints have been received in the past for noise levels.
Based on this, the applicant is aware of the noise
complaints from years past. As I indicated, they plan to closely monitor those sound levels
and comply with the code. So I think we need a little clarification on their extension.
But based on the complaints, the comments, and their willingness to abide by the code
I put in our draft permit, our basic conditions, their conditions number 33 and 34, amplified
supplied music shall end at 10 p.m. and the late night music venue end at 12 midnight.
We also added in their sound levels. They are restricted to 70 decibels prior to 10 p.m.
and 50 decibels after 10 p.m. So that's also in there under one of those conditions.
Under health, sanitation, and safety, the organizer is required to have a plan for
medical sanitation, traffic control, security. I'm not going to go into great detail on this,
but the draft permit has all our standard conditions of approval in there regarding
insurance, sanitation, water, security, drugs, alcohol, fire. The Newbury event plans to
use adventure medics. We do require prior to the event a list of the names of those
folks that will be at the event trained in first aid and AED device for the
duration of the event that's condition number 18. Also along health and safety
as vendors will be required to be licensed by the county health department
on-site water supply shall be tested prior to the event in the fire
department shall inspect the site prior to the event.
The applicant is
requesting a waiver to the ambulance requirement on site this is the
ability of the board to waive a requirement. DCC 816-150, if the organizer is showing good
cause, you can waive a requirement. The applicant is providing adventure medics on site. There
is a letter in your packet from adventure medics. They're basically like a mini ambulance
type service. Tom Kuhn, the community health program manager for the county, reviewed
and signed off on this medical plan and also the Lapine Fire Chief complimented the performance
of adventure medics and they're not requiring additional medical services on site. I just
want to point out that the closest fire station is about six miles to the south on Burgess Road
and I think that's it. So that will be something you want to discuss and decide on
whether or not to waive the ambulance requirement for this event.
For the traffic plan and parking, there are four areas.
Three of them are off-site for parking.
The applicant plans to provide some shuttle service through Blazing Trail Tours.
There's going to be no parking signs on Bridge Drive.
There's going to be temporary signage and along other roads.
I don't want to go into detail here.
One of their proposals is to have parking on one side a sprake loop, and I'm going
to touch on that in a minute because that's an issue we want to discuss.
The road department and the senior transportation planner did make some recommendations.
They would like to see a revised traffic control plan showing at a minimum the placement
of traffic control staff and the signage in the road right of way.
They want us to possibly see a parking circulation plan to demonstrate how traffic will be promptly
moved off of spray-gloop hidden Glencourt and Bridge Drive to avoid queuing in those
streets.
Adequate space on site so there isn't queuing on the roadway is also a recommendation.
We have put in the permit, the general condition that traffic control personnel
shell, shell certification of training for that and list of personnel.
Back to the Sprague Loop one way or one sided parking.
The road department is discouraging parking within a county right of way.
This includes the parking on Sprague Loop and the draft permit does not include
parking prohibition or no parking signs at this time that this is going to be a
choice for the board prohibition of parking according to the road department
prohibition of parking within a county right away can only happen through a
board order or through a permit like this an outdoor mass gathering permit if
you add it as a condition of approval no parking in County Road right away and
I bring that forward to you because there have been concerns you have two
comments in your packet, I believe, and then we just got another one this week,
concerns about the traffic impacts, especially on Sprague Loop, and parking
on Sprague Loop on both sides, and then also Bridge Drive, there's concern
about that being only the ingress egress to that neighborhood for
emergency reasons, and there's some other things that people are concerned
about in decent activity, drugs, late night noise was another concern.
So overall, staff believes that this applicant has met or can meet through
conditions of approval for an outdoor mass-gathering permit. If you have any
questions on this particular one, that concludes my very quick presentation.
That's great. I can't speak quite as quickly as Nick and smoothly. I'm working
on it. I don't have questions. Do you have questions to staff?
What did you think about the complaint that there's only one access?
Is that significant?
Oh, the only Ingress egress on Bridge Drive?
Yeah.
I did talk to the county road department.
There was discussion several years ago about providing another emergency access to that neighborhood.
and I think it didn't materialize maybe for reasons of property owners not
willing to provide that I you know that would be a question for the road
department they've already left today so but I did inquire just to make sure
that that is indeed the only ingress, I don't have any comments of
that sort of teaser.
Okay.
Doug.
Yes, please.
Sure.
Please.
And then state your name for the record.
My name is Doug Watt, and I am one of the founders, along with my wife, Gloria Watt,
of the Newberry Event fundraiser to Defeat MS, and we're also the venue at Diamonds
Stone Guest Lodges.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
I have a couple of comments I can make.
I did include in my addition here a letter from Quail Run Golf Course, and they also
are local.
They are within 250 feet.
The manager of that course lives within 250 feet of us as well.
And I can provide a number of other letters from our neighbors that will support this
if you feel you need them.
I can provide them to you.
As far as the ingress, egress situation is concerned, one of the concerns also for this
year was that we were concerned that they were going to be paving the portion of Huntington
that's down dirt down there.
And that has been confirmed by the road department, Cody the engineer who's spoken
with Knife River, that that's not going to be happening until August 14th or later.
So that is not a concern specifically for that north egress situation.
As far as specifically on Bridge Drive, we're pretty much the north end of that road.
And so we're pretty close to the egress location.
So if we were at the south end, I think that would be a much larger concern
bringing that many people to the south end of that subdivision.
But we're right at the north end pretty much.
There's already a golf course that brings in a considerable amount of traffic of its own.
But we will be controlling that traffic.
One of the concerns I have and one of the things I want to ask you in the process of getting the traffic people coordinated
is how I deal with where should I put them, specifically I'm not necessarily wanting to
put them in the roadway, and I don't think we really need to.
Signing should get people directly to us if we put the signs up right, correctly.
So I would think that we should be able to resolve that issue without, we have traffic
control people, but not having them in the actual roadway.
And then the other concern was getting people off of the,
in parking situation, getting them off of the road.
We're going to provide at least a 75-foot easement,
which is what's required to get people off of spray-gloop
in the process of getting them to parking.
So we should be able to control that situation.
Another item was parking on spray-gloop itself.
Now, we have done that the last four years on one side,
and we've controlled that.
But we do have more than enough parking not to do that.
In fact, parking lot C and D we've never even had to use before.
Now let me bring up one subject which is the amount of people that we're having at this thing.
Last year we had just that right about 500.
So I don't know that we're really going to get any more than that this year
and we don't necessarily need that much.
I just I felt like because we were a three-day event that we should probably just go for an OMG gathering and
I have to be honest. I'm not sure it was really worthy of having done
So I almost was ready to rescind it and go back to 500 and in fact
We're willing to do that if that would make a difference and it made if it was a concern to people because honestly
I'm just not sure how many more we're gonna get over that 500
We're willing to cap it as well because I think we're gonna meet all of our goals at that
So if that's a concern, I'm willing to consider that as well.
And I don't know that there's any – oh, insurance.
We already have insurance, underwriter approval,
and to the amount of more than the county requires for the liability insurance situation.
And so I'm not sure what else I need to – I have to say to have any questions.
I'm happy to answer them.
Do you have questions as well?
I would like to know if anybody else is here to speak on this subject, and then you all have a few questions.
No, we did have a gentleman, but I don't know which one, and it doesn't appear to be here.
That's hard to read.
Yeah, let's get the noise thing figured out.
You know, I'm surprised.
Yeah, oh, by the way, yeah, let's talk about that. First of all, that was a passing when
Mark had made to her, but I don't want it, we don't need to have it go past 10 o'clock
for amplified music, but we do would have acoustic music until midnight, but I think, I don't
think anybody's even gonna hear that, honestly.
Well, yeah, so just acknowledging, you know, as I say, after the event last year I spoke
to you, and I was like, whoa, you guys were going for it last year, and you said
that an officer was there and there didn't seem to be a problem, so I understand
that's the past. Let's move forward. In fact, we reported to the county a month before,
the week before, Dr. Sherriff, myself, the day before that. So we tried to address those
and we actually addressed that noise issue. We brought him our permit. He said, I don't
see any noise ordinance in here. Now, not might have had to do because it was a risk
evaluation decision versus an OMG permit originally.
You still should be bound by the 10 p.m., correct? That's a no.
Right, no, and I understand that.
Don't run, but I asked those questions last year,
but nobody actually gave me anything in writing
related to that, so I didn't know that until that time.
And we've got some input from neighbors, pretty upset,
because it was like two years in a row,
they're like, I can't believe it.
I rented the house and then this thing happened.
So I just want to support that.
10 o'clock is non-amplified unless you're asking
for different, we can discuss that.
But I think the expectations and your understanding
a lot more clear this year. Oh yeah, absolutely. In fact the OMG permit we're
meeting whether I had decided to pull that and go for the other permit would
not have changed anything we're doing with a professional security everything
we've meet every requirement of the OMG permit requirements. So I would I would
just say that I find myself challenged by you've had a bit of a pattern in
terms of the noise piece. And in the record it states that it was difficult to get individuals
on your own property to quiet down. And that, I believe, was by – I think the notation
was from your wife stating that there were men and they were more, you know, kind of
over an hour ago.
I wanted to have Gloria address that herself. Unfortunately, she's at the hospital for
a five-hour infusion of a new MS drug today, so she couldn't be here.
I believe that she took the statement of one person that complained, and then decided to, I think, be over concerned about the situation, frankly.
However, this year, that isn't going to happen anyway because there was amplified music going until much later, and that isn't going to happen at all.
So, and the professional security that we have this year will also be helping, and they'll
be on staff 24 hours a day, to make sure that those considerations will not occur again.
So, I will say that if they do happen again, I will not be inclined to approve your permit
in the future.
I have no problem with that, frankly, at all, none.
We see that as a, I want you to be successful, and this is a business matter in terms
of being able to do this and raise money for an excellent cause, but at the same time we
have to balance those needs between the neighbors and it is a privilege to have to be able to
do this type of activity and when it doesn't get in control to where we can meet those
compatibility challenges between neighbors then it tends to taint it for other organizations
So I want you to be successful and I am taking you at your word that you will be diligent
this year and understanding of the rules that are applied to your permit, and I'm hearing
you say that as well, but I just, as one, I want to be clear that if we find ourselves
next year in the same spot, I won't be quite as...
I believe that will certainly not happen.
I'm already...
Well, I hope it doesn't.
Well, no, even the quality of the situation is developed differently this year, so that
everybody understands it.
Great.
Well, and I have full confidence that you're going to get the question.
And one of the things is the security as well.
So having enough security staff on tap so that they can be distributed around to make
sure that none of those things happen.
And I think that the energy of what was of that situation last year is not going to be
there this year.
There's a different quality of music this year as well.
These applications are new to me.
We did another one earlier this year, the Ibra Festival is going to be this weekend
or outdoor mass gathering.
And so as we got closer to that one, we had complaints from some of the neighbors,
etc. that felt like they hadn't been heard during the hearing process is my
thought would be is we see some letters in here and I don't know your
relationship with any of these letter the letter writers but hopefully you've tried
to talk to them their concerns and met with them and I've already talked on
the phone to all of them that's a big thing I think in terms of being a good
neighbor and it sounds like it's a worthwhile benefit and cause and but
I agree with kind of what Commissioner Baney and Commissioner DeBone are saying about keeping
it within the confines of what you're supposed to do.
I should say too that we did also send prior to this two weeks ago a letter to every single
person within a third of a mile of our property and told them what we were doing so they
are completely aware.
So not just 250 feet, which is what the county sent the letter for, but we sent
is everybody within a third of a mile. That's 1,250 to 1,300 feet or so. So there was way
a great opportunity for anybody who really wanted to be here to complain to be here.
And if you do want them, I can definitely provide you with other letters from immediate
neighbors that are supportive of what we do. But I will respect everything you
guys are saying about the noise ordinance, believe me. We're just getting
out of the facts of the application and making sure it fits. Oh, believe me. I
totally understand. Well, and I think of, you know, going through this process is
taking the whole event to another level. You know, documenting all this, figuring
out the requirements. I know you've done some of this in the past, but this
is that next level. So as you started off saying, you might not have gone
on this way is seeing where it's at.
Well, I only mean that for the standpoint of all the stuff we have to do for it is not
a problem.
We're not even sure that we wanted to go over 500 to begin with, anyway.
Well, no, this year.
Well, no.
And yeah, we'll see.
We'll find out.
We may cap it at six, even.
That's kind of where we actually personally want to sort of keep it, but 750, we just
wanted to make sure we were, if we got the response, we could accommodate it.
Your success is going to be predicated on the management
of how you can manage the event, too.
So we'll leave that to you.
Yes, please.
So parking?
I know it's kind of a standard to park
on one side of the roads out there when there's people
around.
Is there a way to kind of limit it past your properties?
Yeah.
Well, here's, OK, so that's a good question.
And I don't know how to be advised on that.
Because, again, part of it is we
We don't want to have a bunch of our staff always constantly in the roadway, or themselves,
but how do we make sure people don't park down there?
You'd have to have a person there literally 24 hours a day to keep them from parking on
the road.
And they may not even be people who have anything to do with us.
Just as rodeo.
They put up signs all the way.
Well, I don't have a problem with that.
I think that's the only way.
That's the way to go, is to put up no parking signs.
The other, you know, in construction job sites, we put up, you know, ropes, you know...
Sure. And that's a consideration as well. Like...
It's not hard to park where you're not right in the middle of the road, so...
Right. Well, I think that that's not a bad idea necessarily.
We took a look at taking a rope of some kind.
I've got a few hundred metal stakes, if you can.
If I had to go quite a ways.
So then the problem is you got to actually put that restriction out in the roadway.
Is this a county road?
It is a county road.
Are we on a timeline here of we have to make a decision today?
No, but because their event is almost 30 days away.
And I can't advertise, which I'm not doing yet, until I get an approval.
What has me concerned is the traffic management and parking plan.
Can you help give me some pot or some?
Well, what we've done in the past with four peaks, especially, because that's the one
we've seen the most, is it's pretty standard for the standard condition that the road
department wants to see something at least 30 days prior to there.
And so they'll review and if there's issues, they'll talk about it with the organizer.
So that's what I've got in here.
or the only thing I changed was because it's almost 30 days,
I gave them a little bit of benefit here
and made it 20 days.
And I meant to mention that earlier.
So 20 days prior, if they could get some kind of workout
with the road department and the transportation engineer,
what's a good plan?
You may need to have flaggers or individuals
through your entirety of the event.
Also, the other piece is we can't
allow you putting signs or signage up on a county road without approval as well.
So that conversation with the road department is going to be critical to, and I would almost
say that it's contingent upon their approval of a plan.
So it will require you in short order to meet with them and discuss what that looks
like.
And if they require flagging or whatever the requirement might be, they're going
going to base it on that cap number of 750 because that's what your request is.
Okay.
So you'll want to work all of that out.
Yeah.
Am I?
Yeah, and it seems to work pretty well, just on past experience, especially the four peaks.
They did an exceptional job this year.
They actually hired somebody, a traffic control kind of engineer person.
So not that I'm saying you have to do that, but.
But the person who is helping us with traffic does it for the athletic club of Bend.
Right.
So I think when you have a plan, you know, if you've met with them previously, the road
department, send it to me and then your final plan, and then I disperse it to you or distribute
it to you, the appropriate road department.
Right.
Now, one of the things I wanted to say is that the Hidden Glen Court is one of
the parking areas.
Now, there's only a property, the only property that enters onto that roadway is when I own.
It's a vacation rental, otherwise it's a little cul-de-sac.
So here's what we would like you to do.
We won't be able to know whether that makes sense or not, or flow works well or doesn't.
So I think what would make the most sense is if you were to be able to take the individual that you are working with,
have them meet with you in the road department, you get that information back to Cynthia.
She gives it a good blessing, and I think that's – we're accustomed to these requests
at the road department, and so they'll be ready to have that conversation.
And then for us, it's a condition of approval should we go forward with an approval.
And if you meet that, she'll know, and if you don't meet that, she'll know.
And that's how it works.
Just just trying to make sure I understand exactly what level of detail somebody wants right and I think do I need to
Actually, I mean, you know, how many cars do I need to show traffic or parking for we can discuss that later
And I can give you an example from another festival, but I think working with the road department
And another setting would would work. All right, great
My question is, would you add on the, as a condition, prohibition of parking on the
right-of-way?
Or do you want to leave it as that was one of the parking issues?
Well, we've had that on other applications.
I haven't seen a congestion problem, I have seen parking on the side of the road,
But it's not as acute as, you know, one of the neighbors that are probably kind of on
that edge of a spraig loop with you.
I should also mention that it is a loop.
Yeah.
So, I mean, there is another entrance to a spraig loop besides the entrance to the
Marriott.
Do we need to specify?
No, I was just curious if you wanted to, just because there has been comments about
it being a bottleneck right there and people who live on that loop not able to get
through to their property, which is like right next door, you know, or something
like that. So that were the case, then you couldn't get a fire truck or an
ambulance or something. So the road department, it seems that if that were
a point that we wanted to verify that there is the ability for emergency
personnel and equipment to get through, which is what they're also looking for.
than you would essentially be in violation if we were to allow that and someone were to have a photograph of it not being able to meet that.
I understand that.
So I'll be just keeping a standard condition and see what the transportation traffic plan.
Okay.
Yeah, it hasn't been an acute problem.
As I say, maybe there's a neighbor that has seen it differently, but I've been by during the festival.
Okay.
Okay, so the request, there was an extension of hours or no?
No.
Okay.
I don't need that.
I just said that we will probably have acoustic music, but it's not going to be loud at all.
You wouldn't even hear it probably on the side of the ground.
Amplified at 10 o'clock cutoff is...
Right.
10 is fine.
I don't have a problem with that at all.
That was already our plan anyway.
That's...
Information in the record by both, especially lapine fire and rescue, certainly, and with what
you've put on in it to replace that, I think, is plenty. So any concerns there of that waiver?
Okay. And then we have the parking piece. So your approval is conditioned upon that. And
so we'll look forward to hearing how that works.
I'll get with Cynthia right after.
So what else?
I think those were the issues.
Did we hit the high notes? Okay.
The waiver, the sound, and the traffic were the big issues.
So I think my draft permit is pretty much touches all that.
Okay.
Excellent.
So I would go – do we have anyone who wants to testify?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and close the hearing.
And I would welcome a motion with the conditions that have been outlined.
I'll move Board Signature of Document Number 2017-337.
Okay.
I'll second that.
Okay.
Further discussion?
Commissioner Devone?
Yes.
Commissioner Henderson?
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Thank you for being able to answer our questions.
So next we will open the public hearing.
Same format that was noted in the last public hearing.
Consideration of Signature of Document 2017-338.
and outdoor mass gathering for Oregon Adaptive Sports, big stuff. Cynthia, good to see you again.
It's been so long. Okay, I'm going to just try to run through this because I know you have a meeting that started a minute ago.
So in this case, Big Stock, Oregon Adaptive Sports, their Big Stock 2017 this year is proposed right there, August 12th,
August 11th, the 13th to plan for set up and take down.
Oregon Adaptive Sports has been holding an annual music festival for at least seven years
at a property within the city limits, and this is their first year outside the city
limits and into the outdoor mass gathering venue.
The address is 63030 Cole Road.
It is just east of the intersection. It shoots Market Road and Butler Market Road
areas surrounded primarily by urban and rural residential uses and some farm
uses. You'll see there's a mix of sizes of properties in this area.
They are also anticipating an attendance of 750 people and that
includes everybody. They've got it pretty simple here. They are within
than 300 feet of a residence.
However, they are planning on ending their festival
at 10 p.m., stopping the amplified music.
I believe they are in agreement with not exceeding
the 70 decibels prior to 10 and 50 decibels after 10.
Looks like most people will be exiting
and off the site by 11 p.m. that day, that night.
We've got all our standard conditions in there,
including insurance, sanitation, water security, alcohol.
One thing I do want to mention in my staff report, I indicated the fire department, they
hadn't commented, and these are their standard conditions.
I did get word after my staff report was issued that they're okay with those standard
conditions.
So those standard conditions from the fire department are in the draft permit.
I can't remember the condition numbers.
I think, let's see here, the only real issue I think here is their waiver to the ambulance on site.
Big stock and Oregon Adaptive Sports plans on having the National Ski Patrol on the property as part of their medical plan.
The Hanby fire station is about two miles away, St. Charles Hospital is 1.5 miles away.
The fire department has signed off on this. However, the county's community health program manager Tom Coon reviewed the plan.
However, he was reluctant to sign off on it by the strict reading of the code.
The way it reads, he didn't feel he could sign off on this.
However, he understands that you have the ability to waive that requirement if you feel it's
the organizer has shown good cause.
I had a question.
So why wasn't Autumn...
I mean, we've done two others this year where it was waived.
He didn't look at the other two or what was the difference?
No, I think he's had a...
Well, they're maybe in a change of staff.
Is Tom fairly new?
No?
Okay, so I think he's reading the code a little more closely
and looking at these outdoor mass gatherings with a different eye.
Probably a lawyer talked to him about something.
The one that we just approved had an on-site,
they were adventure medics, they're much
certified, and national skew patrol is probably
at a lower step. And that could be his hesitation
for that. And I know he discussed this
with legal counsel David Doyle, and so that's one thing that we'll
counsel felt.
Legal counsel, I wish David, I don't know if Adam remembers this discussion.
We talked about it at the work session.
Do you remember the David said?
We had a meeting several weeks ago.
I think they reviewed the code provision,
and certainly didn't feel, the final decision isn't necessarily theirs, they're just reviewing
and commenting on one aspect of the application.
The final decision, of course, the county commissioners because it's only the commissioners
that can waive the ambulance requirement.
I think the code language is pretty clear, the burden is on the applicant to provide
justification for that waiver.
there's further criteria in the code. I'm happy to go through that criteria if necessary,
but their position when initially receiving the application is this is not a decision
for us to make. This is something that needs to be presented to the commissioners and
as part of their waiver authority. Okay.
We'll let you muddle over that. I'll just
touch up on the traffic and parking. They seem to have a pretty good parking plan.
The road department and senior transportation planner requested for additional signage.
that is written in the draft permit and also providing adequate space on site
before the first parking space, looking at their parking plan, which I think I've
got right there. They've got plenty of space. I don't know if you can see my
they come all the way down this road and then the entrance into the parking
is here. I think that's more than 75 feet, but we put that in the
condition anyway.
And a lot of the standard conditions there. So we did
not receive a formal comment. I did get an inquiry, a little bit of concern about
Cole Road being an only in and out. However, maybe with the signage and being
a low-use road, it might be fine. This gentleman did not submit a comment
formally.
So overall, I think the staff believes that the applicant has met or
can meet the criteria for an outdoor mass gathering. For some reason, the
maps didn't really come out. Yeah, I know. It was a quick to tell what they say. There's
the application actually has those same maps. So it's earlier in your packet. Okay. So I
should join us please.
Good to see you.
Do I have to push one? No, it's on. Okay. Hi.
Suzanne Lafke. I'm the executive director of Oregon Adaptive Sports. Thank you for
your time today. I also have with me Kelly Bronner who is one of our board members and
is the head of our big stock committee. And Leanne Scholes who is my facilities manager
for the event. I don't know if you're familiar with our adaptive sports. We were founded
in Bend. We're a 20-year-old organization. Very embedded in the central Oregon community.
We have an excellent reputation.
We do adaptive sports activities, so we support individuals with disabilities to engage in
the outdoors.
We ski.
We golf.
We kayak.
We do all kinds of really fun stuff.
I do want to first acknowledge Cynthia that she was incredibly helpful with us.
This is the first time we've had to go through this process, although big stock, this
will be our eighth year.
We've never been in the county, and it was quite intimidating.
We have a very small staff.
We don't have a lot of...
It's very hard for us to get this kind of stuff done.
So Cynthia was incredibly helpful,
and I want to thank her for helping us with that.
I am here to address any of your questions.
Big Stock is this incredible event.
We have a great reputation.
We've managed it well.
This, again, is the eighth year.
We've never had any issues.
It's very well received in our community.
We are requesting the ambulance waiver because our proximity to St. Charles.
Secondly, this is an event where the medical community, we've never been at a shortage of doctors and healthcare providers in the audience.
We actually started providing our own first aid crew starting three years ago.
We had a doctor and a PA that were on call at the site and they bring a defibrillator.
I mean, they bring all types of equipment with them.
They work for Desert Orthopedics, which has been a sponsor of ours since we started.
So we believe we have neurosurgeons.
I mean, we have an incredible house of doctors that evening.
We also, I would like to ask the National Ski Patrol to have a volunteer first aid tip
because we work closely with them at Mount Bachelor and they're good friends of ours
and I know they would be honored to be able to do that.
I know that they are able to at least provide initial response of first aid
along with the doctors that we believe will in the house
and we will also provide additional equipment.
Obviously as a non-profit, we are a very small non-profit.
This event is incredibly important to us and every dollar we raise is precious to us.
We have already incurred extremely high costs just associated with the event because prior to this,
we had the event at a personal residence and so literally our venue costs were zero
And we are really trying to keep our costs down on the event.
And we did, and I don't know if it's possible this year, but in my application I also made a request on the fees associated with it, with even applying for the permit.
And I realize Cynthia has gone through a lot of work, so I understand the fees.
I just, perhaps in future years, if we go through this, maybe there's a way we can do a little more of the work and try to reduce our costs on that.
Do you have any questions?
Do we have questions?
Well, thanks for the presentation. Thanks for going through the work and dealing with the county.
me and it sounds great that Cynthia has done such a great job with you and I think she
did on the other one apparently, so I don't really have any specific questions.
Once the application gets complete, it will be the template for the future, so we'll
see where we go.
Yes, and we're hoping so, especially for the venue.
You heard a little bit of the dialogue before.
it matters a great deal that we can allow these events to continue and that there isn't a compatibility issue or safety issue.
So I just really ask, and this is your first time out of the gate in the county, we really want you to be successful,
but we also want to make sure that the conditions that we've placed, they're there for a reason,
not just because it adds to the compatibility, but also the safety.
So we look forward to, you know, that this works and it's a good venue for you and that
you have success there too.
So thank you.
We will be putting, we put a lot of effort into it and obviously for this, our number
one is the safety of our guests in every way.
And then of course we take a lot of pride in making a first class event.
So we put a lot of thought behind it.
And that does include the neighbors.
we will in the past pretty much every neighbor that was in the area came to
our event so we operate like a family and we intend that to happen at this
location as well. Great so do we have other concerns or conditions that we
need to discuss we do have the waiver of the ambulance there is no there isn't
a request for an extension on any of the hours or any of that so really it's
the waiver.
You know, I think on the line with the waiver, the ambulance we've done it in the other two
that were approved this year, I think it, I guess it'd be conditioned, I guess, on having
some support.
You said it was the ski patrol, and I guess that would be a condition that you get that
agreement that they, I think it's good to have some place that is designated as a
first aid place.
I mean it's good you have doctors in the audience but I mean I think it's I don't know it gives
a sense of safety and security if something happens people know where to go so I guess
that would be a condition because the other ones we've waived have had a more clear plan
I guess or more committed by the time we heard about it.
Is there a first aid tent?
Yes, we are intending on having a first aid tent and we can, we potentially could
house it with doctors and PAs, we can certainly get that, but I prefer, I think the National
Ski Patrol would be honored to provide that to us and would do well at it.
It's great coverage for them to be associated with the event.
I think also outlining the equipment that's available and maybe that's so that it isn't,
if someone were to say, well, we're going to adopt a sports, their application, someone
might look at it and say, well, you didn't really outline because they weren't privy
to this conversation. So what, they may use that for a basis for requesting that we also
not require them, but it's not an apples and apples comparison. So if we can really
shore up that medical piece of on-call, the equipment that's going to be available, you
know, the ski patrol, that adds a package that feels stronger than the dialogue if you're
just reading the application. Cynthia.
I have a comment on the medical. Using Four Peaks Music Festival as an example, they
do something very similar where a lot of their attendees are also, they rotate in
for medical staff, and they've got doctors and nurses and they've got just their lists
keeps getting longer of their medical staff, but they provide that list as people who are
there to offer services as part of their medical plan.
So we require a list of those people who are going to be on call or using it, providing
medical staff as part of the condition of your permit that you have to supply us
with the list of those names and their certifications or, you know, whatever it is, and I would
recommend that those on-call folks be part of that list in addition to the National Ski
Patrol staff.
And then going forward in the future, too, and that's, I think, four peaks, they've
got this constant, they're like a little big family now, but they provide those
names up front almost when they know these people are going to be attending and they're
going to be rotating in our first aid tent.
So that would be, since we're requiring that information anyway in our condition, my suggestion
is to include those on-call people on there.
That sounds great because then those individuals, it's clarity for us, it's clarity for an
application in the future and they know that they have responsibility.
It's one thing, is there a doctor in the house and the doctor may have had a couple
glasses of wine and is in the house but it's very, very different and you're pleased to
have that person but that would, you know, that is definitely something that happens
at our event.
Yeah.
Known to have a glass of wine.
Yes.
So I think, and as they should, so I think you understand what we're getting at and
I work with Cynthia pleased to just make sure that that's captured in a way that
it also will save you time in the future because then you have the process for
next year.
Okay, so supportive all right so I would it are we supportive of the ambulance waiver
yes okay great so then we will I would welcome a motion I'd make the motion I
don't see the consideration here okay it would be signature of document number
2017-338 Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for OAS Big Stock.
Second.
Okay.
For the discussion, Mr. Henderson?
Yes.
Mr. Devone?
Yes.
Chair votes yes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Very exciting.
Morning.
Yeah.
Who knew?
All right.
So next time.
Other meetings started 20 minutes ago.
Yeah.
It's upstairs.
Okay, let's convene as a governing body of the 9-1-1 County Service District consideration
of weekly accounts payable vouchers in the amount of $17,738.63.
Move approval subject to review.
Second.
Okay, Commissioner DeBone.
Yes.
Commissioner Henderson.
Yes.
Chair Boatiaz.
Now convene as a governing body at the extension for each county service district
in the amount of $705.86.
Move approval subject to review.
Second.
Okay, Commissioner DeBone.
Yes.
Mr. Henderson.
Yes.
Just renaming you.
Oh, him first.
Okay.
Chair votes yes.
All right.
Now let's reconvene as the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, consideration of
weekly accounts, payable vouchers in the amount of $840,902 and $0.23.
Mover approval subject to review.
Second.
Okay.
Tom, anything of, all right.
Come on.
There's got to be something more interesting than anything we've been into today.
In all honesty, commissioners, it's a pretty routine.
Nothing really stands out.
We spent 20 grand on repairing heavy equipment at solid waste.
It's probably the top of the market.
There you go.
All right.
That's exciting.
Okay.
Commissioner Devone?
Yes.
Commissioner Henderson?
Yes.
Sure votes yes.
And anything else to come before the board?
Seeing none.
We are adjourned.
All right.
How do we want to navigate?