Minutes: Board of Commission Meeting, 08/07/2002 COUNTY COMMISSIONER CHAIR BRIAN D. COLE
COUNTY COMMISSIONER HOWARD C. BRITTON COUNTY COMMISSIONER TIM L. KERNS
The Baker County Board of Commissioners met for the August 7, 2002 Commission Session. Present were Commission Chair Brian D. Cole, Commissioner Howard C. Britton, Commissioner Tim L. Kerns, and Interim Administrative Officer Mark Bennett.
Citizen’s Participation:
Ms. Nancy Gover, representing the Northeast Area Commission on Transportation (NEACT), was present to discuss terms of the representatives and the creation of a list of ex-official members. The NEACT is interested in anyone that can contribute to issues of transportation. One member from this list would need to be appointed as an alternate. Ms. Gover stated that her recommendation was to appoint Roadmaster Ken Helgerson as the alternate. Ms. Gover added that the NEACT would be visiting each county to hear their priorities. NEACT was scheduled to meet in Baker County on October 3, 2002. Ms. Gover requested that when traveling to these meetings, that a county car could be used. Commissioner Cole stated that a carpool could be started.
Ms. Peggy Timm, stated her interest was around the Pacific Northwest Law Enforcement Training Center (PNWLETC). Ms. Timm requested that the scheduled discussion for 1:15 p.m. on the PNWLETC be rescheduled to be discussed first. Ms. Timm stated that in the Spring of 1996 the Oregonian wrote an article on Baker County’s law enforcement. The article shook a lot of people up and it looked very negative for Baker County. Ms. Timm stated that she and Lana Emery had met shortly after the article and discussed breaking DPSST in half and getting an eastern section of it located in Baker City. Ms. Timm was surprised to hear that it had since become a federal project and wanted to know the number of people that were currently employed by the County or had contracts, and how much they were being paid. Ms. Timm stated that she had heard rumors regarding a lobbyist in Alaska and an even more expensive one in Washington, D.C. Ms. Timm questioned if the Budget Board was still required to approve grant monies. Commissioner Britton stated that if there were unanticipated funds in the interim during the year and if they were within a certain percentage, the County was not required to convene a meeting of the Budget Board. Commissioner Britton stated that the County had accepted the grants through resolutions and there had been such as a resolution for the $200,000 federal grant.
Ms. Timm stated that what she had read in the papers and in letters led her to believe that it was unlikely that the four states were to be partners and questioned if that was so. Commissioner Britton stated that the partnership would be decided in the future and that is was a goal to form the four-state partnership.
Ms. Timm questioned if it would be possible for her to get the information on who was working, how much they were getting paid, and where the money had came from. Commissioner Britton stated that the people working on the project were paid through a combination of grants and county funds. Commissioner Britton clarified that there were two different projects: the Pacific Northwest Law Enforcement Training Center, and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Commissioner Cole clarified that Mr. Steve Kernes did not represent the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center since they day he retired. Commissioner Cole questioned if the Board of Commissioners wanted to continue the discussion. Commission Kerns suggested that the conversation be continued until 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Britton agreed. Commissioner Cole addressed Ms. Timm’s question on an agenda from the National Sheriff’s Association Conference where Mr. Steve Kernes was listed as a FLETC employee. Commissioner Cole stated that the agenda listed him as a presenter on the PNWLETC and listed that Mr. Kernes was federally employed--that was an error by the National Sheriff’s Association, and clarity from the Association was being sought.
Mr. Jim Van Duyn questioned if the Commissioner would be discussing the PNWLETC at 1:15 p.m. Mr. Van Duyn stated that he would make his comments at that time.
Review/Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Britton moved to approve the July 24, 2002 Commission Session minutes. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Additions to the Agenda:
*Order No. 2002-181: Rock Creek Bridge
*Update on Consolidated Dispatch
*Update on Idaho Power
*Baker County Foreclosure Property
Scheduled Business: Baker County Parks and Recreation Update: Larry Taylor, Parks and Recreation Director was present to give an update. Mr. Taylor supplied the Commissioners with a spreadsheet showing Hewitt and Holcomb Parks’ income. The parks currently sell wood and ice. Mr. Taylor listed the un-audited numbers for the year at $51,000, adding that it was above average. Mr. Taylor stated that a sign had been put at Holcomb to try to divert day use people to use Holcomb in order to reduce the congestion at Hewitt. Commissioner Kerns clarified that the years of low income were a direct correlation with the water levels. Commissioner Britton stated that it has a lot to do with the fish flows as well.
Mr. Taylor commented on the largest costs associated with the parks: rental of restroom, hauling off fish entrails, and trash. Mr. Taylor stated that it has been a problem with people outside of the park using their dumpsters.
Mr. Taylor stated it costs about $94,000 to run the parks program, and estimated that the parks had made around $2,000. Commissioner Kerns questioned if this included interest. Mr. Taylor stated yes.
Mr. Taylor went over the accomplishments for the 2001-2002 year: Hewitt Park restrooms were painted, added molding on walls and floors, added mirrors and benches, repainted strips on Hewitt parking lot, performed repair work on docks and painted, reduced weeds and designed a new pay shower. The “pay shower” would be a small building with two shower stalls, handicap accessible and customers would pay to use them. Mr. Taylor stated that he was looking for someone who could build it for less than $5,000. Mr. Taylor stated that accomplishments for Holcomb Park included a small building being moved over the well and that Idaho Power had agreed to put power into the park as long as Baker County paid for it. They would be putting a small line in to run the well and smaller lights. Mr. Taylor stated that there had also been some treatment done in regards to the puncture vines.
Commissioner Cole questioned if Ms. Nancy Gover had any comments on Hewitt and Holcomb Parks. Ms. Gover stated that they needed more done with Holcomb Park to accommodate the larger RVs. There had been a request that a light be placed down by the dock for those that night fish. Ms. Gover complimented Bud Bashler’s work out at Hewitt and Holcomb Parks. Ms. Gover stated that the Parks Board was on top of what was going on.
Mr. Taylor discussed plans for the upcoming year: getting power to the new shower facility and the well at Holcomb Park, assess getting ten more RV spots wired for Hewitt, and look at blading off a ten foot wide strip in the shade, where land was dug up to place the new septic system, and make the area for tent camping. Mr. Taylor stated that a potential problem could be had with the Hewitt well. The well was only drilled 36 feet deep and they have begun to run out of water now and then. Future plans would also include redoing the bumpers on the docks.
Mr. Taylor questioned the grazing contracts with the Defrees and the Warnocks. Commissioner Cole stated that the Defrees’ had opted out of the plan because they did not receive their OWEB grant. Mr. Taylor stated that the County did not have a current lease with the Warnocks. Commissioner Cole asked that County Counsel look into the status of the Warnock lease.
Public Hearing: Bowers Appeal:
Commissioner Cole opened the public hearing at 10:00 a.m.
Planning Director Mark Bennett stated that the public hearing was a continuation of the July 3, 2002 public hearing as there were some concerns by the appellant regarding the Planning Commission’s May 23, 2002 minutes. Subsequently the Planning Commission met and made some amendments and added one addendum. Mr. Bennett stated that no new information would be entered. The public hearing was being held to review previous action taken by the Planning Commission regarding Ms. Dottie Bowers’ building permit. Mr. Bennett stated that the case was straightforward and all of the documents were on hand. Mr. Bennett stated that the focus of the hearing was to decide if the Planning Director erred in issuing a Lot of Record building permit.
County Counsel Sarah Hilderbrand stated that prior to beginning the public hearing the Commissioners would need to declare any exparte contacts that they would have had with the appellants or anyone else related to the case besides staff. Commissioner Cole stated that he had had a number of meetings with Ms. Bowers and her family. Commissioner Cole thought it best to recluse himself from the hearing and be dismissed. Commissioners Britton and Kerns stated that they had not any exparte contacts.
Commissioner Britton asked that one spokesperson be appointed to represent the appellants. Ms. Dorothy Bowers would be the spokesperson, however requested that her son, David Bowers, come before the Board of Commissioners to converse with. Commissioner Britton stated that it would be okay.
Ms. Bowers requested to read a statement on the reason for the public hearing. Commissioner Britton stated that the reason that they had was to hear an appeal from the Planning Commission decision. Ms. Bowers stated that they were appealing the Planning Commission’s decision because they were not allowed to submit any evidence in the hearing because they were told not to. Ms. Bowers requested that the current Commission Session be recorded in its entirety and that the tapes and minutes be made available to them. Ms. Bowers also requested that the minutes be transcribed word for word as there had been problems with previous tapes being lost, destroyed and wording changed or deleted. Ms. Bowers stated that Baker County had violated their constitutional rights and committed very serious procedural errors. Ms. Bowers stated that Sarah Hilderbrand, County Counsel did not allow them to present any evidence that by law, they felt they should have been allowed to present during the May 23, 2002 Planning Commission hearing. Ms. Bowers stated that Ms. Hilderbrand had told the Planning Commission to “make their decision on the appeal and then if they wanted to allow the Bowers’ time to discuss any issues it could be done at another time”. Ms. Bowers stated that it was an evidentiary hearing as stated in the County appeal code under ORS 215.406 and ORS 215.416 and that the hearing was supposed to be an opportunity to present evidence, testimony, and arguments for the appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Ms. Bowers stated that a copy of the appeal code was given to the Planning Commission stating that she was allowed to give evidence and testimony at the hearing but they had ignored the written documents. Ms. Bowers stated that she was not allowed to present either written or oral testimony to the Planning Commission except for her opening statement. Ms. Bowers stated that Chair Terry Drever Gee reopened the public question period of the hearing and told them that she would give 15 minutes for public testimony, but this was after their final decision had been made. Ms. Bowers felt that the Planning Commission had only heard evidence from one side presented by Baker County. Ms. Bowers requested that the Board of Commissioners give them the opportunity to present testimony, evidence, and argument at today’s hearing, which by law they should have been allowed to present to the Planning Commission hearing on May 23, 2002.
Ms. Bowers stated that Baker County had used the Date of Creation and Existence, a law that was completely irrelevant to deny Clyde Conklin this Lot of Record. Mr. Conklin had owned the land from 1953 to 1998. Commission Britton stated that he acknowledged the first part of her statement, but would not take evidence regarding the history with Clyde Conklin. Commissioner Britton stated that he had reviewed the Planning Commission minutes and that the Board of Commissioners would determine whether or not the Planning Director erred in not issuing Ms. Bowers a Lot of Record building permit. The issue was never whether or not there was an error made in 1997. Ms. Bowers stated that it was never issue because they were not allowed to come before them and not allowed for them to do anything about this. Commissioner Britton stated that there was an appeal period that was allowable for that period of time, but that period has been passed. Ms. Bowers stated that no one knew for sure that there was an appeal period when the County made the mistake and they brought a Supreme Court case law (Polsalo vs. Rhode Island) to Mr. Bennett and Brian Cole last year. Ms. Bowers stated that they believed that the case law gave them the right to contest laws that were on the books before they bought the property. Ms. Bowers stated that Mark Bennett dismissed it and said the supreme court ruling had nothing to do with them. Ms. Bowers stated that Ms. Hilderbrand had said that if they could provide the County with case law, then they could reopen this.
Commissioner Britton emphasized that it was still not within the scope of what the public hearing was about. Commissioner Britton stated that the Board of Commissioners were either going affirm or overturn the Planning Commission decision on whether or not the Planning Director erred in approving or denying the Lot of Record building permit. Commissioner Britton stated that he was not sure where Ms. Bowers would go with her case, either to the Circuit Court, or back through the Planning Commission .
Ms. Hilderbrand stated that the best advice would be seek legal counsel. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that Ms. Bowers had talked to Oregonians in Action, David Hunnicutt, who would know how to reopen an old case. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that she had spoken with Mr. Hunnicutt and he did not see a way that the Planning Department, Planning Commission or Board of Commissioners could reopen the case. Mr. Hunnicutt had no avenue that he knew of to go back and look at this decision. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that she had spoken with DCLD and they did not have an avenue to go through it. Ms. Hilderbrand’s best suggestion was to go to outside legal counsel and see if they could come up with something to go through Circuit Court, go through the state somehow.
Ms. Bowers stated that she had provided the case law that was requested in order for them to look back at it. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that Ms. Bowers had provided a supreme court case that wasn’t relevant to the issue. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that the entire case law needed to be looked at including background, facts, and circumstances. Ms. Hilderbrand reiterated that there was nothing in Oregon law allowing Baker County to look back on the case.
Ms. Bowers questioned if the supreme court case was case law. Ms. Hilderbrand stated yes—in the State of Rhode Island. Ms. Bowers stated that the State of Rhode Island remanded this back to them and said they erred in denying him the right when he contested the law on the books. Ms. Bowers stated that this was exactly what they were doing. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that it was different and again suggested finding outside legal counsel. Mr. Bowers was concerned that taxpayer dollars would need to be spent on a mistake made by the County. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that she did not know that a mistake had been made and that the mechanism to go back and look at the case had not been provided by the case law provided by Ms. Bowers.
Ms. Bowers questioned why Ms. Hilderbrand did not let them present the information at the Planning Commission. Ms. Hilderbrand responded that it was her recollection that she said that they needed to focus on the issue of the appeal. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that Ms. Bowers went ahead and presented her evidence and does not believe that they stopped her. Ms. Bowers stated that they did not, but the Commission had already decided to wait to listen to them until after the hearing. Ms. Bowers then stated the county codes of appeal: “the applicant and other parties shall have the same opportunities to present evidence, testimony, and arguments as they would have had in a hearing under subsection 3 of the section before the decision. The presentation of testimony, arguments, and evidence shall not be limited to issues raised in the notice of appeal and the decision makers shall consider all relevant testimony, arguments, and evidence that are accepted at the hearing. Ms. Hildebrand agreed, but added that the evidence, etc. had to be relevant to the issue. Discussion of a five-year-old appeal was not relevant.
Ms. Bowers stated that Oregonians in Action had informed her that the County Commissioners could overturn a ruling that was based on false information. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that if they could find someway to fix it, they would. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that no one appealed it five years ago. Ms. Bowers stated that it was not appealed because Mark Sackos had spoken to Bill Searles, Grant Young, John Jennings from DCLD, and Ned Steele who was the Planning Commission Chairman at the time. Mr. Sackos fought it tooth and nail and told them that the law did not pertain in this instance, they all told him that it was a done deal and there was nothing that could be done about it. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that he should have still appealed. Ms. Hilderbrand reiterated that the only issue before the Board of Commissioners whether or not the Planning Commission error in upholding the Planning Director’s decision to deny the building permit.
Mr. David Bowers stated that they had been trying to bring things up for years and they were told they could only hear this or take this route. Ms. Bowers stated that Mr. Bennett offered them a one to two acre non-farm dwelling in Brian Cole’s office with Mark Sackos as a witness, if they would let the date of creation problem go. Ms. Bowers stated that Mr. Bennett threatened the Planning Commission that they would be personally sued if they decided on her case. Ms. Bowers stated that Ms. Hilderbrand had decided that they had to take 42.7 acres out of farm deferral—this was the trade for letting this thing go. They would have to pay over $5,000 in an abatement, there would be four times as much taxes on the land, and the abatement would be given back to them at 20% per year for a five year period, but because the county is forcing them to do this, they could not get the abatement back. Ms. Bowers stated that she felt deals had been made, things had happened in the County, and it was just not right.
Commissioner Britton stated that he understood, had read a lot of minutes and letters, but was still held to the original intent of the hearing. Commissioner Britton stated that Ms. Hilderbrand’s advice to seek outside legal advice was sound advice. Ms. Bowers continued that the record was not complete and the Commissioners would not be able to make a decision. Commissioner Britton stated that they have their own rules on what can be heard and had a record of that. Commissioner Britton suggested again that Ms. Bowers seek outside legal advice to find other avenues. Ms. Bowers stated that they had talked to outside legal counsel and they told them to give the County every possibility to settle it and correct it before they went to the court system.
Commissioner Kerns questioned if there was any other avenue of review. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that she could not find any.
Ms. Bowers commented that the jury should be able to hear both sides. Commissioner Britton stated that there was a real narrow scope that they look at. Ms. Bowers stated that the hearing should have been treated as a regular Planning Commission meeting where you could bring up all the evidence you have for them to make a determination. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that it had to be relevant information. When you applied for a building permit based on a Lot of Record, the question isn’t should you have a Lot of Record or was a mistake made five years ago, the question is there a Lot of Record or not. Ms. Bowers stated that the information she had was relevant. Ms. Hilderbrand questioned if Ms. Bowers believed there was a Lot of Record, whether it was lost in a file, or even if it was applied for and someone misplaced it. Ms. Bowers stated that it was applied for by Clyde Conklin. Ms. Hilderbrand asked if it was approved. Ms. Bowers stated no because the County had made a mistake. Ms. Hilderbrand clarified that the decision to allow a building permit was based on whether the Lot of Record existed, not should it exist. Ms. Bowers stated that Mr. Bennett had used in his staff report that the Lot of Record was denied in 1997 and he knew why it was denied. It was the County that made the error why the Lot of Record was not approved in the first place.
Ms. Bowers stated that the County seemed determined that this go to court and they do not understand why this had not been resolved. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that the only reason they had not resolved it, was because the County did not have a way to. Ms. Bowers stated that they felt the County Court did have a way. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that there had to be something in statute or ordinance that said the Board of Commissioners may reopen the case.
Commissioner Britton stated that the County’s hands were tied and understood Ms. Bowers’ frustration. Ms. Bowers stated that there had been so many offers and deals and they have been shot down, many of which Ms. Bowers felt were not equitable trades.
Commissioner Britton stated that if there was a way to rectify the mistake, the County would like to know that, but so far the research had not shown us a to do that.
Commissioner Kerns paraphrased Randy Joseph’s comments in the Planning Commission’s minutes: we can not go back and review everything that has been done in history or else we would never be able to move ahead.
Ms. Bowers stated that no one knew for sure that there was an appeal time when the County was the one that made the mistake. Commissioner Britton stated that that could be a question that a judge could answer. Commissioner Britton stated that Ms. Hilderbrand was correct in that he did not believe that the County would fight the issue if the issue is whether or not we can go back and hear a mistake that was made five years ago, he does not see that the County would fight that.
At this time the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Britton stated that it was his opinion that the decision was correct as there was not a Lot of Record in order to issue a permit. Commissioner Kerns stated that he was sympathetic, and realized that there was a narrow scope and did not have many choices. Commissioner Britton moved to enter an Order into record to be signed out of Court that we uphold the Planning Commission’s decision of May 23, 2002 to uphold the Planning Director’s decision on the building permit. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bennett read the official statement: “you will receive official written notice of this decision within five business days of the day of hearing. From this date there will be 21-day appeal period to the Land Use Board of Appeals. If there is no appeal within this time period then the decision will be final. It is the responsibility of appellant to file the Notice of Intent to Appeal with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals as defined in ORS 197.830”.
Ms. Bowers stated that she appreciated being heard, felt the County had wronged them and that they would continue to get things straightened out.
Commissioner Britton stated that it was clearly a two-sided issue and was interested to see how it turned out.
Addition to the Agenda Update on Consolidated Dispatch:
Commissioner Cole stated that Sheriff Hale was unable to give a report. Commissioner Cole stated that he had met with Sheriff Hale and the Baker City Manager Gordon Zimmerman during the previous week and the discussion was very cordial, very solution oriented, and he was very optimistic that the discussion would lead to an agreement that would be satisfactory to both the City and the County.
Update on Idaho Power Dam Re-licensing:
Commissioner Cole stated that he had received an email from Ms. Peggi Timm stating that she had requested to step down from the committee. Commissioner Cole stated that he hoped after his update that she would decide to stay on. Commissioner Cole stated that he had presented to the Commissioners over the past couple of meetings that it would be timely to get specialized legal assistance in order to get Baker County’s objectives achieved. Idaho Power had indicated that they would be releasing their draft license in September. Commissioner Cole stated that he had approached three entities associated with Baker County government with the proposal that the County acquire a grant and contract for specialized legal services during this process. Those entities were the Board of Commissioners, the Hells Canyon Dam Relicensing Advisory Committee, and the Baker/Morrow Regional Partnership. Commissioner Cole stated that he had met with Roy Eiguren, an attorney with Givens Pursley. Mr. Eiguren had convinced Commissioner Cole that he was willing and able to represent Baker County. Commissioner Cole asked him for a proposal. Since that request, Mr. Eiguren sent a letter stating that he had new obligations and would not be able to provide his services to Baker County. Therefore, Baker County does not have an attorney under contract. Commissioner Cole stated that he was concerned to keep this thing going.
Commissioner Britton stated that he would be willing to work on it and become a volunteer on the committee.
Dr. Carl Stiff was present and stated that he would be involved shortly in county matters, would work with Commissioner Britton and get a sense of direction.
Commissioner Kerns stated that he was not sure how much could be achieved with an attorney for $5,000, given that the draft would be coming out in September/October, it might be a good idea to wait and see what happens and be able to see what direction the County should take.
Commissioner Cole stated that there were two avenues for success: participation in the formal FERC relicensing process and/or development of a pre-licensing settlement agreement. Commissioner Cole stated that there might be other attorneys in the firm of Givens Pursley that could help. Commissioner Cole stated that he was personally reluctant to hold off and wait for the draft to come out.
Ms. Timm stated that another possible avenue would be to file for mitigation. The Commissioners could make the decision protesting what Idaho Power had done under the current license.
Commissioner Cole stated that he had had a discussion with Mr. Eiguren about that option and Mr. Eiguren was very clear in stating that the County would have to put $250,000 down for legal fees to start the process. Commissioner Cole stated that if there was a group in Baker County that wanted to raise the funds, they would have his vote to go that way. Commissioner Cole recommended that he stay involved, however turn the Idaho Power Dam Relicensing over to Commissioner Britton and Dr. Stiff. Commissioner Cole also suggested contacting Jack Robertson for assistance.
Ms. Timm suggested contacting the lawyer that represented OTEC.
Commissioner Britton stated that it would be wise to find out what the cost would be.
Commissioner Kerns questioned if Baker County’s land use rules were up to date to give Baker County the leverage possible. Commissioner Cole stated that he been urging the Planning Commission to take the matter up and they were currently doing so. Commissioner Cole stated that he had worked hard to have Idaho Power’s Resource Management Plan reference Baker County’s Comprehensive Plan/local planning. Commissioner Kerns stated that he was concerned that the land use rules be up to date by the time Idaho Power’s draft application was submitted. Commissioner Kerns recommended continuing to search out attorneys to review the situation. Commissioner Cole stated that he would meet with Dr. Stiff and Jack Robertson.
New Directions Northwest:Bart Murray and Richard Morrow were present before the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Murray stated that New Directions Northwest had been working on preliminary work for a Community Block Grant. Mr. Murray stated that Gloria Zacharias had given them verbal approval but wanted Mr. Murray and Mr. Morrow to obtain Baker County’s support before they took the next step. Mr. Murray stated that their project involved locating their adult residential program by the Powder River Correctional Facility. Mr. Murray stated that they were working on having the sale of the old building okayed in writing. Their goal was to move the adult program, which is currently in a residential area, to an area where there are few houses. The cost to renovate the building they are currently in was too much. Therefore, the New Directions Northwest Board felt that it would be best to find a new location (proposed facility near the Powder River Correctional Facility). Mr. Murray stated that their proposed new facility would cost approximately $1 million. The Community Block Grant would be for $600,000. Mr. Murray stated that they would begin writing grants to foundations and look at obtaining a Rural Development loan. Mr. Murray stated that once verbal okay was received by the Board of Commissioners, an agreement would be signed, and would be given 45 days to proceed. Prior to moving forward, Mr. Murray assured the Board of Commissioners that he would come before them for their approval.
Commissioner Britton questioned who would administer the grant. Mr. Murray stated that Community Connections would manage the grant. The County would not administer the grant unless it wanted to.
Mr. Morrow handed out packets regarding modular buildings and where the site was located. Mr. Morrow stated that an estimated budget was included in his packet. Mr. Morrow requested that the Board of Commissioners prepare something in writing showing Baker County’s support.
Commissioner Britton moved to pass a resolution to be signed out of court stating Baker County’s support of this project as a sponsor. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Britton stated that it sounded like a very good project to consolidate the programs, and there was no cost to the County. Commissioner Cole questioned how many active grants could be opened at one time. Mr. Morrow stated that only two CBDG grants could be active and it was his understanding that there were no other open grants. Mr. Murray stated that there were other sources of funding than just one. They would begin on writing to foundations and will be looking at liquidating their current building for resources. Motion carried unanimously.
Documents to be Signed: Contract with Mountain Valley Mental Health: Commissioner Britton stated that the contract was with the Commission on Children and Families. Mountain Valley Mental Health provides counseling to the inmates at the jail at $110/hour. Commissioner Britton moved to approve the contract between Baker County and Mountain Valley Mental Health. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Kerns requested clarification on where the funds for the contract were from. Interim Administrative Officer Mark Bennett stated that he would do more research and bring it back before the Board of Commissioners. Commissioners Britton and Kerns withdrew their motions.
Order No. 2002-175: Designating a Newspaper of Publication for the 2002 Foreclosure List.Commissioner Britton moved to approve Order No. 2002-175. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Kerns questioned if both newspapers were being treated fairly. Commissioner Cole stated that the County had traditionally gone with the Record Courier as the newspaper of record. There had been a request from the publisher of the Baker City Herald to become the newspaper of record. Commissioner Cole stated that staff had recommended staying with the Record Courier as it was countywide and less expensive. Motion carried unanimously.
Order No 2002-176 through 178: Assigning terms to members of the Northeast Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (NEACT). Commissioner Kerns moved to appoint Tim Kerns to a one-year term, Nancy Gover to a two-year term, and Mary Jo Carpenter to a three-year term. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Order No. 2002-180: Appointing an Alternate or Designee to serve on the Northeast Oregon Area Commission on Transportation. Commissioner Kerns moved to appoint Roadmaster Ken Helgerson as an alternate to the NEACT for a one-year term. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Contract with Mountain Valley Mental Health. Sheriff Hale was present and stated that the funds were budgeted annually for counseling services for the jail. Sheriff Hale stated that typically Dr. Heriza performed the duties and did so for about an hour a week. Sheriff Hale recommended approval of the contract. Commissioner Kerns moved to approve the contract between Baker County and Mountain Valley Mental Health. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Contract with John Bootsma and Windmill Lane: Commissioner Cole stated that a recent work session was held to discuss a request from John Bootsma to improve a ¼ mile of county road on Windmill Road to the City of Baker City standards. Commissioner Cole stated that it was the County’s policy that if approached by a Baker County citizen with a proposal to do road improvements and that they would cover the cost of asphalt, that Baker County would pave the road. Commissioner Cole stated that Mr. Bootsma had signed an agreement with Baker County to put $10,000 up front to cover a grant with the Baker/Morrow Regional Partnership and Baker County. Commissioner Cole stated that the Mr. Bootsma had signed the agreement and had delivered the $10,000. Commissioner Cole stated that Mr. Bootsma had requested that the agreement reflect the ability to retain jobs not just create jobs out there. Commissioner Kerns questioned if the City would accept the road once it was complete. Commissioner Cole stated that a letter had been received by the mayor stating so and it had been discussed with the City Council. Commissioner Britton questioned if Mr. Bootsma would have to complete the tractor museum. Commissioner Cole stated that it was “and/or”. The Bootsma’s intentions were to fully proceed with the project. Commissioner Britton clarified that if the GEOEDC was not satisfied, Baker County would keep the $10,000, leaving the County with really no risk. Commissioner Kerns moved to approve the agreement with John Bootsma. Commissioner Cole seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Ratification of Documents: Contract with Guyer, Lindley, Bailey and Martin: Commissioner Cole stated that a letter had been received from Dave Lindley, Baker County’s auditor, regarding the State of Oregon’s request to receive all copies of Baker County’s audit. County Counsel Sarah Hilderbrand stated that the agreement was the same as last year and both the Finance Manager Ms. Cook and Ms. Hilderbrand had reviewed it. Commissioner Britton moved to ratify the contract. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Britton would like to see the auditors include their fee in the contract if possible. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that they could list a base fee, but should there be additional work, they would have to negotiate for additional. Motion carried unanimously.
Documents to be Signed: Order 2002-181: Authorizing an Expenditure to Replace a Bridge with a Bottomless Arch Culvert on a Local Access Road.Commissioner Kerns moved to correct the Order No. to read 2002-181. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that two years ago a petition was offered by Al Schmeits to recognize the portion of road as an RS2477 right of way. The Board of Commissioners did decide to recognize the road as such and in order to expend funds on the road, the Roadmaster would need to determine that either an emergency existed or that it was in need of repairs for the benefit of the public. The Board of Commissioners would then need to pass an order declaring that it was going to be single project or a number of projects and authorizing the expenditure of funds on the local access road. The project in question would be to replace an old wooden bridge. Mr. Bennett stated the project was very similar to Mr. Bootsma’s. The Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative and the landowners had purchased the culvert and steel and the County Road Department would do the labor. Commissioner Kerns moved to approve Order No.2002-181. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Kerns stated that he felt is was very important that the County do projects like this so that everyone could continue to have access to public lands.
Scheduled Business: Local Contract Review Board: Commissioner Britton stated that Mr. Rob Ellingson would not be present. Commissioner Cole stated that a request had been received by Fair Board member Rob Ellingson to waive the requirements for retainage and a performance bond for the foundation for the beef barn. The low bidder was Sid Johnson Co. Commissioner Cole read the staff report provided by County Counsel. Commissioner Kerns questioned if the bids were set bids. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that the bidders submitted their bids based on a retainage and the bond. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that they would only have to have the performance bond for a short period, as the date of completion for the project was the end of September. Commissioner Britton questioned how many bids were received. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that she believed there were five. Commissioner Kerns stated that the County should have done it in advance to the bids going out. Commissioner Britton stated that it could have affect on the other bid amounts. Consensus was reached to not go into Local Contract Review Board and waive the requirements for retainage and a performance bond for the foundation of the beef barn.
Addition to the Agenda: Baker County Foreclosure Properties for Sale: Ms. Hilderbrand stated that she had prepared a short list of properties to be sold at a tax foreclosure auction. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that she went through every property owned by the County and most of them were substandard and would be a good idea to contact adjacent landowners to see if they would be interested. Ms. Hilderbrand presented the Board of Commissioners with a list of the best properties that people had expressed interest in. Ms. Hilderbrand briefly explained the parcels listed. Ms. Hilderbrand asked that the Commissioners let her know of other property that they felt should be considered. Commissioner Kerns stated that in regards to the Lime Plant, he would prefer to retain ownership until a “master plan” was done and consider leasing to the adjacent landowners that were interested. Commissioner Britton questioned if the two service stations would be ready to go to market. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that DEQ would need to take a look at them prior to selling. Ms. Hilderbrand requested that the Commissioners review her information and be ready to create a list for the next commission session. Ms. Hilderbrand added that the sale would occur sometime in October.
Documents to be Signed: National Guard Armory MOU:Interim Administrative Officer Mark Bennett stated that the Board of Commissioners needed to approve the MOU in order for the National Guard to go out to bid. Mr. Bennett stated that the National Guard asked that what the Commissioners did not feel comfortable with, to cross out. Mr. Bennett stated that it did need to be approved as soon as possible. Commissioner Kerns stated that he would like to have Bob Savage and Chuck Wiltse’s opinions as well as Blue Mountain Community Colleges. Mr. Bennett stated that the document wasn’t a part of what was going on with Blue Mountain Community College’s lease agreement. It was between Baker County and the National Guard. Baker County would then sublet space to BMCC. Commissioner Kerns stated that he was concerned about Baker County being listed as the sole source for funding design, permits, approval, etc. and wanted to know if those figures were nailed down. Mr. Bennett stated that the estimate for utilities was $15,000. Commissioner Kerns requested to the table the MOU until Mr. Bennett could spend more time on specific questions in the afternoon.
Discussion Topics: Comparison of Calendars:
August 7: Senator Smith and Congressman Smith in Haines, BMCC Meeting
August 8: County Empowerment Meeting
August 10: Shrine Game
August 13: Planning Commission Workshop in Haines
August 14: Work Session
August 16: Mike Snyder Training for Managers/Elected Officials
August 17: Airport Fly In, St. Elizabeth Golf Tournament, Durkee Steak Feed
August 21: Elected Officials Meeting, Commission Session
Scheduled Business: Pacific Northwest Law Enforcement Training Center (PNWLETC): Commissioner Cole stated that previous discussions had been held on the matter during citizen’s participation earlier in the day. Commissioner Cole stated that the Baker City Herald had ran an editorial regarding the PNWLETC asking specific questions. Commissioner Cole requested to address each of the questions in the editorial. Commissioner Cole stated that it was news to Baker County that the county’s designation as an export training site was eliminated. Commissioner Cole clarified that Baker County was not singled out and discontinued as an export training site, but rather FLETC made a nationwide decision not to go with the export training site designations around the nations. Commissioner Cole stated that a very small percentage of the training that had been brought to Baker County and Pendleton were FLETC programs.
Ms. Emery stated that FLETC programs were not the only avenues of training. Losing the designation of being an export training site should have no affect on training. Ms. Emery stated that out of 50 trainings, only six were FLETC programs. Other sources of training were available to the County at no cost. The only cost to the County was the Ms. Emery’s salary. Commissioner Cole stated that in the 2001-02 budget, approximately $34,000 was spent on Ms. Emery’s salary. That cost was offset by a $15,000 grant. Commissioner Cole stated that in terms of hospitality, Mr. Kernes had created a draft document on the economic benefits from the training. Commissioner Cole highlighted some of the benefits to date: over 1,000 students had attended the training in Baker City, more classes being offered, tuition free, estimation of money spent by students and their families, and instructors was over $208,342, communities in eastern Oregon had saved $126,000 in travel and training, and the total benefit to Baker County benefit was in excess of $300,000.
Commissioner Britton would like to see a breakdown of the net return for the hospitality industries. How it is spent in stores, hotels, etc. Commissioner Britton believed that further analysis needed to be done.
Commissioner Cole addressed the question on the timeline for funding from Congress for construction and implementation of the training, and to secure it. Commissioner Cole stated that Baker County’s goal to get funding was for this session. The goal was to get a markup in appropriations bill in September and expected to know by this Fall. Baker County needs to continue to communicate with the lobbyist Steve Silver.
Commissioner Cole stated that Ms. Emery’s last day would be August 15 and she would continue to volunteer her time to see a class proceed in September. Ms. Emery stated that she would be aggressively working to schedule additional training. Ms. Emery stated that Baker County had done a great job establishing its credibility with law enforcement/students and would continue to make a difference.
Commissioner Cole added that Mr. Kernes would also resign, however, would continue to advance the project without payment.
Commissioner Cole gave an update on the $200,000 federal appropriations. Commissioner Cole stated that the funds had not reached Baker County, however, the funds were available to be drawn down and were on their way. Ms. Cook stated that the grant was a reimbursable grant. The funds would be used for Mr. Kernes’ salary, a portion of Patrick Smith’s, and the research done by BMCC and Minot State University.
Commissioner Britton clarified the phasing of the armory. Commissioner Britton stated that the basic armory would still be built even if the training center was not successful. A grant from The Ford Family Foundation for $500,000 had been received for enhancements to the armory particularly the additional space for BMCC lease. Commissioner Britton clarified that the armory project was a phased project and whether or not the final enhancement of the training center was included depended upon receiving funding.
Mr. Jim Van Duyn questioned what had been spent and what time commitments had been made to the lobbyist. Commissioner Cole replied that a $25,000 grant had been received by the Baker/Morrow Regional Partnership to contract with Mr. Silver. Mr. Silver’s firm is an Alaska-based with offices in Washington D.C. The contract began in January of 2002 and would expire in September 2002. Commissioner Kerns added that this was a renewed agreement with Mr. Silver. Mr. Van Duyn discussed feasibility studies and the obstacles. Mr. Van Duyn stated that the Commissioners had been very successful in having the new armory built in Baker City with the inclusion of Blue Mountain Community College. The enhancement of a conference center did not make economic sense as per the task force. Mr. Van Duyn questioned why Commissioner Cole made the statement in an April 5, letter to the Record Courier that the task force preferred the training center to the conference center. The training center has relied upon nearly 100% to build and operate it. Mr. Van Duyn emphasized that the federal funds were not guaranteed. Mr. Van Duyn would like to see focus on private sector jobs instead of focusing on government sector job creation. Mr. Van Duyn went over some budget numbers for the fiscal year July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. Baker County had paid over $200,000 and had only received $16,020 in grants to cover them. Mr. Van Duyn urged the Commission to cease all funding for the training center efforts.
Commissioner Kerns questioned if Mr. Van Duyn was supportive of having BMCC included in the armory. Mr. Van Duyn stated that that portion should proceed. Mr. Van Duyn stated that he had met with Mr. Bennett regarding the building phases of the armory, and understood that the armory and BMCC phases would be able to proceed without the training center.
Commissioner Britton questioned if Mr. Van Duyn thought it wise should they get the federal funds to build the training center onto the armory. Mr. Van Duyn stated that Baker County was running out of available time. The longer they go forward without the training center the more expenses there would be if there needs to be a big change.
Ms. Cook clarified that the numbers Mr. Van Duyn had referred to were not audited numbers.
Ms. Timm questioned if the $200,000 appropriation was on the way. Commissioner Cole stated that Baker County should receive the funds or a letter by the end of August.
Commissioner Cole discussed the two appropriations that were before Congress totaling $2.1 million and clarified the payments for research performed by BMCC and Minot State University.
Ms. Emery clarified that the $200,000 included the full payments to BMCC and Minot State University.
Mr. James Morris stated that the training center needed to be looked at as an investment. It was a question of whether you look forward or not. Mr. Morris stated that he was concerned that the people in the community were worried about putting five dollars out and not the $50,000 return. Mr. Morris stated that he was in support of the concept of the training center, as it would benefit the region, however, he would be pleased with just the armory and the community college as it would enhance Baker City and Baker County.
The question was raised on whether the Commissioners were satisfied with Mr. Silver’s representation. Commissioner Cole stated that there were never guarantees in any economic development venture. Commissioner Cole stated that Mr. Silver had been providing very good advice. Mr. Silver’s job became even more difficult as a result of DPSST’s letter to the congressional delegation.
Mr. Greg Sackos questioned if the training center was the basket where the County wanted to put all of its eggs in. Mr. Sackos stated that Baker County appeared to be very fractured and was being accused of not being upfront with the training center. Mr. Sackos questioned how many “chips” should be put on the table, how far does the County go for economic development, and is it worth the effort and expenditure.
Ms. Timm questioned what was worked out for the property at Grove and Campbell where the armory would be located. Commissioner Britton stated that old armory and land was traded for the corner property.
Commissioner Cole stated that Baker County was 30 to 60 days away from knowing whether it would be successful in Congress. Commissioner Cole stated that he had worked to minimize the cost of the next 30-60 days by asking Ms. Emery to resign. Commissioner Cole stated that he hoped to have another year of operational funding to build upon what they currently have. There was no intent to push the project with representation that did not exist. Commissioner Cole stated that there was no risk to building the armory and the lease with BMCC was going to be a win/win partnership. Commissioner Cole added that Mr. Kernes would be willing to step down if needed as well to minimize costs. Commissioner Cole recommended covering the costs of the September training.
Mr. Sackos questioned if the training center could be advanced without the support of the other states. Commissioner Cole stated that he was attempting to assess that very question. Mr. Sackos stated that if Baker County met DPSST’s request to restructure the business plan, there would be no reason to have it in Baker County. Commissioner Cole stated that the four-state partnership would have been the best defense to receive money. Commissioner Cole stated that he had spoken with Dianne Middle and believed that the State of Oregon was the key.
Commissioner Britton questioned what the cost of the September training would be. Ms. Emery stated that it would be approximately $480.00. Commissioner Britton recommended putting the project on hold until conditions on the $200,000 funds were received. Commissioner Britton also recommended that Mr. Kernes’ contract be suspended. Commissioner Kerns stated that Mr. Kernes’ payment was contingent upon the receipt of the $200,000. Commissioner Britton moved to suspend expenditures, except for the $1,100 in outstanding expenditures, in Department 216: Pacific Northwest Law Enforcement Training Center with Ms. Emery’s resignation effective August 15, 2002. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Commission Session was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Nudd, Executive Assistant
Baker County Board of Commissioners