1) Who do you think should pay for the infrastructure for Destination Resorts in Deschutes County?
Alan: Destination Resorts construct and pay for all
of the infrastructure within a resort, centralized sewer and water; roads and other utilities. They also pay their share for off site road improvements based on a required traffic study. Lets say that a resort contributes 25% of a road improvement we need to collect the other 75% of the cost before we can do the road improvement. Resorts pay for their infrastructure, pay taxes, make jobs and attract people who want to recreate in Central Oregon.

2) Under what circumstances would a ‘permit’ issue be brought before a ‘hearings officer’ rather than before the Deschutes County Planning Commission? Does a ‘hearings officer’ get involved if the applicant is unhappy with the decision of the County Staff? If so, what staff decision was the applicant, McDonald’s unhappy about?
Specifically, why did the permitting process for the new McDonald’s in LaPine NOT go before the County’s Planning Commission? Does the Planning Commission get involved only if code needs to be changed, like a text amendment?
Alan: To keep fees as low as possible, planning applications are only sent to a hearings officer for a hearing if issues to be decided are unusually complex or if staff believes the decision will be controversial. Less than 10% of decisions go to a hearings officer. If administrative (staff) decisions are appealed, they then go to a hearings officer. The County decided years ago to use hearings officers rather than the Planning Commission to free up the commission for legislative matters, such as the sign code amendments which affected the La Pine McDonald’s. The original decision approving the McDonald’s was done administratively, and was not appealed.

3) Was the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) chapter of the County’s current Comprehensive Plan ever satisfied/completed? How can you pass the Comprehensive Plan when/if RPS was not done? Also, South Deschutes County has been portrayed as having a current health hazard; this is untrue, inappropriate, and needs to be corrected.
If it is necessary to carry this RPS chapter forward into the new Comp Plan, can it be ‘renamed’ to reflect a favorable impression of the South Deschutes County area? (Suggestion: “Regional Growth Solutions” for South Deschutes County).
Alan: I like changing RPS to Regional Growth Solutions. I doubt if the current plan chapter was satisfied. Circumstances change like rates of growth over time. Nitrates are a problem for the ground water and the rivers. Studies and the DEQ have both said that we need to do something. Land with ground water within two feet of the surface is not where you want to install standard septic systems. We can debate whether we have a current or potential health hazard but we need to reduce old contamination sources and stop new ones if we want to be environmental stewards. This discussion is bigger than the 85 word limit for this column. I will ask the eagle to post a longer answer to the website.

5) The newly ‘proposed’ Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is ‘weighing in’ at an over-whelming and intimidating 422 +/- pages, and we only have a 90 day public comment period to digest it. (At the same time, residents of the LaPine area are also being handed LaPine’s first Comp Plan to digest and comment on.)
In a transparent, good-faith effort to involve more residents in this critical review process of the ornately detailed “future plan/challenges” facing our County, would you, as our Commissioner, support a more ‘user-friendly’, streamlined version, perhaps in two volumes; where the 30-40 pages of ‘essentials’/GOALS and ACTIONS are in one document and the 350+ pages of SUPPORTING/HISTORICAL documents and appendages are in another?
Alan: I think you have a good idea with a streamlined version. Staff is listening to you and they have already produced a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan Update, that focuses entirely on the Goals, Policies and Actions. If you go to www.deschutes.org\cdd then click on “comprehensive update plan” link you can review the new supplement.

6) Would you support a ‘line-item’ veto concerning the County’s proposed Comprehensive Plan, the blueprint for future growth? As you said at the LaPine Town Hall Meeting on October 7, 2009, “Once it (a Comp Plan) gets adopted...you can’t go back.” I can think of two instances where a ‘line-item veto’ would/should be invoked: (1) if there is a misleading/inaccurate statement, remove it. It should not be just a matter of rewording a statement to make it ‘more correct’; either it is correct/accurate, or it is not. And (2) if the reader would be misled due to an omission, something that ‘wasn’t’ disclosed’ in the Historical /Supporting documentation, remove the section.
Alan: the public process is the right time to have these discussions. One benefit of the County’s 90 day public review period is to hear from the community about the content of the Comprehensive Plan. If information is misleading, County staff would appreciate hearing about it, to rectify or clarify the particular issue. I do not believe that the Comp Plan is a final plan, it should be a living document. The public through the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners can request changes to the plan.

7) At the October 8th County/City combined Planning Commissions Meeting in LaPine, the audience was told there are no ‘hidden agendas’ regarding the County’s proposed Comprehensive Plan. Great! then there should also be no ‘hidden’ or unanswered questions. Asking questions is not criticizing; we have a right and obligation to critique the County’s work...it’s our job to participate and become expert critics in the art of judging the County’s work in a fact-finding manner. This is not personal...this is our future.
As we give our elected and appointed officials our support and encouragement and hold the County accountable for their proposed Comprehensive Plan, would you support a transparent process where the County staff should have no qualms, what-so-ever, with answering all of our questions as we go through this Update process? In contrast, many, many questions posed to the County Staff during the Community Conversation sessions were never answered; this was not a transparent process. Too many things were ‘bundled’ together, by Peter Gutowsky’s and Nick Lelack’s own admissions. Just because our questions were NEVER answered, does not negate the validity of the questions.
Alan: I believe that we are conducting an open and truthful process. Our staff is doing a professional job revising the Comp Plan. Staff welcomes public input. Please let go of some past impressions and realize that we want to listen and improve our communications. All I can say is that you might be asking a question that needs a complex answer that does not have an easy yes or no. we are not trying to avoid the answer but provide enough information to support the conclusion. I suggest that you re-ask your questions until you are satisfied with the answer. Ask other people if necessary.

8) Please explain how it is that the County hired 360 to 390 new County employees during this economic downturn with reduced County revenues and what positions did they fill?
Alan: the County has reduced the number of employees from 880 to 840 over the last two fiscal years. We might have to lay off more if revenues do not meet expectations. We do hire new employees to fill vacant and needed positions that are budgeted like deputies, probation officers and health nurses.

9) How much is the County willing to work with ODOT, regarding the need for a light at the intersection of First and Hwy 97 in La Pine. There have been feasibility studies done in the past, and can they be utilized to speed up the process?
Alan: the County is at every meeting with ODOT and is concerned with all intersections in LaPine not just First and Hwy 97. A new study using county funds and services with support from ODOT and the City of LaPine will look for the right solution. Government is deliberate and that takes time. We need to be patient, helpful but insistent that we reach a timely decision that increases safety and promotes business. In the mean time we should do what is necessary to protect our children’s safety.