2007-383-Minutes for Meeting February 21,2007 Recorded 3/29/2007COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKDS C 200744
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0312912001 04;23;05 PM
11111111 II I III
2007-3Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
0mument Reproduces Poorly
(Archived)
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book
or as Fee Number
and Page
to
Q Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF ADMINISTRATIVE WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2007
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Mike Daly and Tammy Baney. Also
present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Susan Ross, Anna Johnson and
David Givans, Commissioners' Office; Marty Wynne, Finance; and, for part of the
meeting, Tom Anderson, Catherine Morrow, Barbara Rich and George Read,
Community Development Department. Also present was media representatives
Barney Lerten of News Channel 21 and Keith Chu of The Bulletin; and eight other
citizens.
The meeting began at 1: 40 p. m.
1. Update on South County Groundwater Project.
Steve Hinkle and Dave Morgan of the US Geological Service have been
involved in the project for many years. They gave a PowerPoint presentation of
their work.
Mr. Hinkle said the La Pine aquifer is very vulnerable, and is used for both
drinking water and sewage disposal. The deeper water tends to be more
mineralized, so people often prefer the shallower water.
A study was done of 200 wells used for domestic purposes. Per the EPA, the
water is good now, but won't stay that way. Between 1960 and 2005, there has
been a 50% increase in nitrate loading.
Commissioner Baney said she has heard comments that nitrates are not that bad.
Mr. Hinkle replied that it is a suspected carcinogen, a cause of blue baby
syndrome, and is regulated by the state and federal government in public wells.
Also, European standards are the same; they just use a different measurement
standard.
Mr. Hinkle gave an overview of the systems and how nitrogen functions.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Page 1 of 8 Pages
Mr. Anderson stated that there have been many complaints that the testing is
too old; however, the tests done in the past give a snapshot of the aquifer.
Nitrate concentrations happen slowly over time, but cannot be reversed. The
water is good now because it has not entered the aquifer; it is just hugging it.
There is a lot of nitrogen loaded that will continue to go into the aquifer over
time, even if everyone stopped using septic systems today.
Another study looked at wastewater compounds - pharmaceuticals, cleaning
supplies, etc. that are going into septic systems. Ten wells in each study were
found to have levels that were too high, per the EPA. All of this eventually
finds its way into the rivers.
The resources that went into studying this area are unprecedented. The process
and findings are well documented now.
Commissioner Luke said that he has been asked why the County is even getting
involved. Barbara Rich stated that the DEQ did a preliminary investigation in
the early 1980's before the core area sewer project went in. Indications of
increasing nitrates were found. The State has an obligation to abide by the
rules. This is not governed by the County. The study acknowledges that a huge
number of people use groundwater for drinking. Once you hit a certain level, it
will take decades for the situation to improve.
Dave Morgan added that once it's gone, it's forever. There is no way to stop
the distribution of nitrates; this cannot be remediated.
There are several options for management plans: the TDC program, with up to
1,500 lots not being buiildable; alternative treatment systems; and no action.
He explained the results of the various options at build-out of the area in about
2019.
Commissioner Daly said that the presentation is highly technical, and some is
hard to understand. It should be simpler and easier to understand.
Commissioner Baney added that it should be in everyday terms. Citizens are
worried about the cost since it is not an emergency right now. They need to
know the community ramifications. The questions are all over the map and
mostly the concerns are on how this affects just them.
A brief discussion took place as to how to present the information in a brief
manner so that it is understandable, but showing that there was a lot of work
done to get to this point.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Page 2 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Luke asked if this is a unique situation. Mr. Morgan said there
are many areas like this due to growth in the rural areas. Some are more
polluted and they are seeing negative impacts. Some places end up putting in
public sewer systems to solve the problem.
Commissioner Baney said that a citizen said, first a sand filter at $11,000. Now
it's the nitrate reducing system and will be maybe $8,000 more; what is next?
Are there things on the horizon that we need to consider?
Mr. Hinkle said there are other pollutants that are a problem, but not as great as
nitrates. Many are unknown at this time. Anti-seizure drugs and other
pharmaceuticals can travel far, but most dissipate quickly. However, this is a
new study that is focusing mostly on surface water situations.
Barbara Rich said the local rule is proposed to keep the separation at 24 feet,
which could handle most of these concerns.
Commissioner Luke said at one time the DEQ felt a sand filter system was state
of the art. Mr. Morgan said they don't handle nitrates that well, and were
primarily developed to deal with bacteria.
Commissioner Baney stated that some people are concerned with the cost of
maintenance. Mr. Hinkle said city residents pay for sewer and water system
costs, and others should take responsibility for their systems. If people put in
standard systems or even sand filter systems at this point, it is possible they
might have to retrofit later. Tom Anderson added that this could affect other
people who might not have to make changes, as the total load will get worse.
Catherine Morrow stated that some people have said nothing should be done
until the studies are published. Three studies have been published; others have
been reviewed by the USGS and it is anticipated there will be few changes
before release of the information. The information is solid and well
documented.
In regard to scheduling public hearings, Laurie Craghead said anyone can
testify because it is a legislative matter. It is possible that oral testimony time
could be limited. Commissioner Baney said that some people think there are
other options and the County should listen to these as well.
Commissioner Luke stated that a presentation should be made and then
testimony taken, including from people who claim to be experts. The reports
are already in writing and perhaps those who have questions can submit them
ahead of time so they can be answered at the meeting.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Page 3 of 8 Pages
Tom Anderson he would not have a formal meeting with a pro and con
scenario. Just allow anyone to testify and ask questions, to narrow down the
concerns. It has to be an honest process with enough time to allow questions
and answers that may have to be addressed at the next meeting. Commissioner
Baney added that it can't come down to an argument or a debate.
Commissioner Luke observed that the County has an obligation to be as
accurate and open as possible. However, others do not have an obligation to be
accurate.
A discussion took place as to whether there would need to be three meetings.
The conclusion was that it probably would, with the first being a presentation
and testimony, the second meeting to respond to questions and take further
testimony, and the third for the Board to deliberate.
Tom Anderson said the local rule is the main concern, as this is where the
financial burden comes into play. Commissioner Luke stated that some of the
information citizens are getting may not be correct.
Marty Wynne observed that many people are below the poverty level in the
area, and a lot are on a fixed income. They can't afford the cost, they won't
want to believe it. There should be an idea of how it will work financially.
Perhaps the cost could be a lien against the property and paid at the time of sale.
They are concerned not only about the water, but their finances. It needs to be
credible and financially feasible.
Commissioner Luke said all new construction has to have the new systems.
The problem is the cost of the retrofits. Perhaps one part of the meetings is
whether to accept the data; and another part is how it can be paid for to benefit
the entire region.
Mr. Anderson then presented a document regarding financial assistance in
regard to retrofits. One big policy question is the level of assistance. Is subsidy
needed, and what at level.
Commissioner Luke stated that the County should help, not as a gift, perhaps
some as a lien. Perhaps an urban renewal district could raise funds to pay for it,
with the cost borne by the entire County. It doesn't do any good to have to try
to solve the problem in ten years. It needs to happen now, and has to be paid
for or financed now. It could be an interest free loan. Some kind of financial
help has to be offered to get it done.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Page 4 of 8 Pages
An urban renewal district could allow bonding. Marty Wynne stated that liens
on properties could come back quickly as they turn over. Dave Kanner said
that he isn't sure urban renewal can do this; it is uncertain that it could benefit
individual properties. It is a tax increment financing district. Tom Anderson
said that they did look into this and it wasn't feasible because it benefits
personal property. Laurie Craghead sated it has to go to a public use.
Commissioner Daly said that he doesn't totally agree that the County should
handle all the cost. The owners need to be responsible to some degree. If there
is enough money from the sale of properties, that works. But if there isn't
enough money, the County should not have to pay it all. Commissioner Luke
said that there needs to be a way to finance it to get it done quickly.
Dave Kanner stated that a grant might help with some of the cost, and the rest
could be financed. Liens may not be paid back for twenty or more years. Ms.
Craghead stated that many people who have little money already have a lot of
liens against their properties. This would jeopardize the County's position.
Commissioner Luke said that there should be some kind of qualification
process. There may be people who can afford to pay for the improvements
outright and won't need assistance.
Commissioner Baney indicated that there needs to be a balance. There need to
be income guidelines, with part paid by grants and part financed. There could
be a concern placing liens on property. Commissioner Daly stated that the
sewer in Redmond was Bancrofted, requiring some payments and a payoff at
time of sale. Tom Anderson added that many are not good risks for loans in the
conventional sense. Commissioner Luke stated that for the better good if some
of them end up not being paid off.
Commissioner Baney asked if there is a new system to come along in 15 years,
will there be another retrofit needed. Mr. Anderson stated that the local rule
would address this. There are unknowns but this is no way to guess what might
come along later. You can't avoid the current problem. It would take a change
in state law to be able to put in a sewer system of this magnitude.
Mr. Anderson reviewed the projected cost of the retrofits. The level of standard
depends on where the property is located. Some areas only require a 35%
reduction; other areas are more sensitive and require a different treatment
system.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Page 5 of 8 Pages
Barbara Rich gave an overview of the lower and higher cost systems and their
performance standards. The average cost to upgrade is about $6,500. Another
variable is the age of the existing system, which would be at the upper end of
the cost scale if the system is over twenty years old and has to be replaced.
Since January 2006, the cost of systems has gone up and more locations need to
be replaced.
Retrofits require just the unit being added; new units require drainfields as well.
Some sand filter systems can be retrofit. Mr. Anderson said that it is not a one
size fits all scenarios - there are many variables.
Dave Kanner stated that the Board needs to clarify how the financial aspects
can be addressed before they attend the hearings. All three hearings will remain
on the schedule; the focus of the third meeting would be deliberations. The
meeting schedule is subject to change as needed.
This issue will be discussed further at the Wednesday, February 28 work
session.
2. Discussion of Law Enforcement District Agreements.
Dave Kanner stated that there are some crucial options to discuss in regard to
funding options for the jail. (He provided a handout with ten questions in this
regard.)
Commissioner Daly said he is educating himself on the situation and has other
concerns as well. He said that more jail beds are needed, at least the ninety in
the work center retrofit.
Mr. Kanner stated perhaps inmates could be housed in Jefferson County. The
Sheriff has to be on board with this solution. Also, perhaps the jail should be
sized based on funds available instead of trying to struggle to find funds for
what is ideal.
He added that in his experience, he feels low bid contracting tends to be bad,
and change orders drive up the cost. It also takes years of dealing with the
problems to get the facility the way it needs to be.
Commissioner Luke said that there needs to be additional jail beds, and they
need to be in Deschutes County. Commissioner Baney agreed. Commissioner
Daly agreed as well, but thinks that other options needs to be considered.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Page 6 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Baney wanted to add information regarding issues with mental
health problems. Commissioner Daly said there are mental health beds needed.
Commissioner Baney said Sheriff Stiles talked about a pod being used for this
purpose, but would require upgrading. Commissioner Daly stated that if there
is a regional jail, there still needs to be the local jail, for holding for trial and so
on. Crook County doesn't have a jail as the Jefferson County jail maybe at
maximum in ten years.
Mr. Kanner asked if the Commissioners feel that the jail should be just for
Deschutes County or a regional facility. If the other counties are not ready to
answer this question, the County needs to move forward for itself.
Commissioner Luke stated that the other two counties would have to go out for
a bond, and it could be difficult for them.
3. Approval of Resolution No. 2007-004, Providing Funding for the HIDTA
Director Position.
LUKE: Move approval.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
4. Economic Development Grant Requests.
■ NOVA Volunteer of the Year Event - Commissioners Luke and Baney
agreed to split the requested amount..
■ Central Oregon High School Rodeo - this will be addressed on February 26.
■ Cascade Middle School Orchestra - this will be addressed on February 26.
■ Project Wildfire Project - Printing for FireFree Weekend - Commissioners
Luke and Baney agreed to split the requested amount..
5. Update of Commissioners' Schedules; Meeting Details.
None was discussed.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Page 7 of 8 Pages
6. Other Items.
Mr. Kanner stated that various community stakeholders have been invited to the
work session meeting scheduled for March 14, at which time road maintenance
funding options will be discussed.
Mr. Kanner advised the Commissioners of the preliminary budget meetings
scheduled for March 13 and 15. He asked that if a Commissioner is interested
on sitting in on a particular meeting, to please let him know.
At this time, the group went into executive session, called under ORS
192.660(2)(e), real estate negotiations.
The Board reconvened at 5:15 p.m. to take action.
BANEY: Move signature of the option agreement from Silvan Power
Company on County-owned property located in the La Pine
Industrial Park.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
DATED this 21St Day of February 2007 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
AWML(15~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Page 8 of 8 Pages
Work Session
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
(P/ease Print)
Name
Department
Q c, ut, ~ m O AZ-. GrY1
b -L,2
CsGd~~z ~vY`cr~
zAe- p h,ro l- e v If-
Cv ~ Cp l® °~e i ( r7!.
Cr6t t dluav)
--To-~J CJe,,tjcc j
C DD
del,
'Q
Please return this sheet to Bonnie @ BOCC. Thanks!
Progress Report: Proposed Local Rule
Deschutes County Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Ave., Bend, OR 97701
PH: (541) 388-6575, FAX: (541) 385-1764
Web: www.deschutes.org/cdd use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project
The goal of the Local Rule is to protect the sole source of drinking water for the residents of south
Deschutes County using the least cost option and creating financial assistance programs.
Discussion Topics
1. Groundwater Science
a. Dave Morgan & Steve Hinkle, US Geological Survey
2. Financial Assistance Overview
3. Hearing Logistics
4. Progress on draft rule and MOU
5. Next steps
Groundwater Protection Project Communication Plan and Public Outreach Summary
Last updated. 212112007
suol'jejinbe of peppe eW4.u etileInwnp
8 ~ cN
C
J.
• °i
1
}
k
~
~z
~
zzz
~ C
~aeos
v M N N ti
v tie31~ fl
Q
y y
v-- m
O G
O co G
0`0
S~
a
b_
C ~
e3 ~
GG E
¢U ~
I
8 $ R
jeeF led own'leynbe of peppe elequ lenuuy
0 N
Q
w
oz
ui
0
o Q
w
Q
o
N ~
Z
0
2A3111 Z13d N SWV~IJIIIIN Ni
'31VILLIN
C) 0~
o 0
a N
K
F
2
O
Y
t7 =
R5Q
O
Z
N O
Q
U
F
y
O
/snq ass ".qa sigs{y
x
W W N OZ W o
Z We
N ~ O
0
:3 Z f
Z Q
m
o o m
O N
¢
~Jw >
x
o0 F-
F F'
0
P
¢iajr D
LL
3DW
O
wfw
O
= W 7 Q U m
z >
w W N
Q
Q
<z
0 Z
E, Z
wFa
d
f 300
QZZ
Q
a¢Q
NO>
Z W aNG
X
W
W NZ
7 Z Q N W W
W z 0
?a~
W W
ZON
w W
O 0= rc o
~ 3 a
O
Q Z
0 0
~0=ma
~
ON
X30
Q
z
Z
z
•
•
O
0
0
t-
~ZO
z _g
Wf
Nl
z
0 a
O N
z
z a~
E ?
0
W
N
0
Tj Cb O
O
NULL jo O
W O O
wZ
O O
mm ga O O •
X? O~ 0t
O N
w
rc
O • ~ w~■
Za
I
OOZ
006 0~
W
F-
0 L W
wa
0
0 2
L O
U 2
LO
Z
ZO'0
O o 0 0
° o
U3111 2Ad N SMUE)I111W NI
'31".LIN
N
tt W~ 7~
w G S ~v n
Z N J 0 - • •
Z k
w z 1 33
Ww p • •
N Q • • O n
0 O
I1~ ~ U
I- LL N
Z w • • •
U ~
N
N N
•
J
O M h h
mW
F
K
F
3
N
•
a y
w
w
f
O
Y
n ay=
O
N
N Q
Q
U
F
N
O
^ /see/ ess enege s~ele{y f
h
z.
O
° F f
W
U Z
Z
°v 0 K
N U
O J
O W f
~ Z
o-
Q
0
N O N O
lIW bad NI ESL-NAE)OWINtlll30
.k
o v
.n 'sa
v~ O
o •
~ y
• 'til
7
h
h
C4
24
2J
Wy Z~
22 QJ Lo
iy rw W
~ z N
N
J
W
Z
Z
Q
a'o ~ U
¢
uai u¢i W ~
O
O
W
X
w
fid uare+w3
t
4
s
~p
1l~IIY : S~~
EL.>tit~~
£EP fi
3d 8~~y ~i
19 X. a96 Y
! .it s
_ r ~ s d gg++ S5}pt1
i
DESCHUTES COUNTY
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT
LOCAL RULE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
OVERVIEW
MAJOR ELEMENTS:
• Introduction/Policy Issues
• Projected Cost of Retrofits
• Projected Funds Available
• Basic Assistance Mechanisms
• Logistical Issues
1
INTRODUCTION/POLICY ISSUES
In order to protect drinking water resources in southern Deschutes County, the
County is considering adopting a Local Rule governing the type of septic systems
allowed in the affected area. The Rule would also require retrofits of existing
systems by requiring existing development to meet at least 35% nitrogen
reduction (discharge a maximum of 30 mg/L total nitrogen as N) based on the
density of development and the vulnerability of the groundwater to contamination.
The nitrogen effluent standard for existing systems can vary by area from a
minimum of 30 mg/L to a maximum of 10 mg/L or less total nitrogen as N. The
Rule as proposed would require all existing systems to be upgraded within 10
years of the date the rule is adopted. The proposal intends to give property
owners a fairly long period of time in which to retrofit systems. The Rule will apply
to those unsewered areas between Sunriver and the Klamath County border, an
area formally defined as those unsewered areas of Townships 19, 20, 21, and 22
and Ranges 9, 10 and 11.
It is the County's desire to provide financial assistance to property owners within
the affected area in retrofitting existing systems. According to 2000 census data,
over 12% of the population has an income level below the poverty level, as
defined by the census, and undertaking a retrofit of their septic system, even at
the lowest reduction level required, would be very difficult. Further, again
according to the 2000 census, over 18% of the area population is 65 or older,
most of whom live on a fixed income where absorbing additional expense would
be a significant burden. In addition to"the figures above; there exists a significant
additional segment of the population where the expense of the required retrofit
would represent a serious financial burden.
In examining the ability of Deschutes County to assist property owners in the
retrofit of existing systems, this report will address the following topics:
-Potential cost of retrofits
-Existing and future financial resources available
-Basic assistance types
-Other logistical Issues
Policy Questions for Board/Community:
What is funding level intent?
• 100% of all costs?
• 75% or 50%?
• Assistance to low/moderate income households only?
• Grants (no payback) at some level acceptable?
2
PROJECTED COST OF RETROFITS
Estimated number of retrofits to be done: 6,400*
*Based on up to date issued permits in the affected area. Active and pending
permits are included in order to provide a conservative estimate of need.
1) Calculation of estimated cost
The tables below reflect two methods of calculating total potential cost of
retrofits. Both of the methodologies split the retrofits by `required reduction'
area. The first method averages cost per retrofit between the low and high
and of the cost range. The second goes further and factors in the age of
the existing system in projecting the cost of the retrofit (e.g. newer
systems will generally be less expensive to retrofit and achieve the
required level of nitrate reduction.
Rough cost approach
Number Lower Upper
Lower Cost Upper Cost
<10 mc~IL 1685
$7,500
$18,000
$12,637,500
$30,330,000
20 m /L
1613
$7,500
$18,000
$12,097,500
$29,034,000
30 m /L
3099
$5,000
$10,000
$15,495,000
$30,990,000
Total
6397
$40,230,000
$90,354,000
$6,289
$14,124
$65,292,000
$10,207
Age related cost approach
<1988 1988+ Lower Upper
Cost for Newer (1988+1
<10 mg/L- 46
1639
$7,500
$18,000 $12,292,500
$828,000
20 mg/L 127
1486
$7,500
$18,000
$11,145,000
$2,286,000
30 mg/L
150
2949
$5,000
$10,000
$14,745,000
$1,500,000
Total
323
6074
$38,182,500
$4,614,000
$6,286
$14,285
Older
Youn er
$42,796,500
$6,690
Ave cost per syst-
age
Total average cost
Ave cost per system
As shown above, the two methods reflect a wide range of possible total cost, with
$65 million at the high end and $43 million at the low end. While based on the
logic of the second method we would expect that the cost will be closer to $43
million than $65 million, there is no way of knowing for certain what the costs will
be without investigating property specific characteristics and other variables such
as the integrity of existing system, the type of new system chosen, and the
variability of retrofit costs over time. The costs could further vary over time as
new technologies are approved for use in Oregon. (As a point of comparison,
the KCM report from 1997 estimated $200 to $280 million to sewer all or part of
the study area.)
2) Estimated Time Frame for Retrofits/Cost Expenditure
Total ave cost
Ave cost per system
Cost for Older <1988)
The three tables below show variations on the possible time frame for
retrofits. The first table shows an even pace of voluntary retrofits. The second
factors in retrofits/upgrades which historically naturally occur each year due to
failures, repairs or remodels. The final chart adds in the possible effect of
financial incentives offered by the County to encourage property owners to
retrofit their systems early. Those incentives are explored later in this report
but may include lower percentage rates on loans offered earlier in the ten
year required retrofit period, and also the expiration of the rebate currently
offered by the developer of Neighborhood 2 in the Newberry Neighborhood.
Even Pace of Retrofits (assumes an equal number of property owners will voluntarilv retrofit each vear)
Year 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Retrofits
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
637
6397
Cost
Meth l
6532480
6532480
6532480
6532480
6532480
6532480
6532480
6532480
6532480
6501859
65294179
Cost
Meth 2
4281600
4281600
4281600
4281600
4281600
4281600
4281600 1
4281600
4281600
4261530
42795930
Retrofits Based on Historical Averages (Adds the historical number of naturally occurrinn retrofits to the numbers above)
Year 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
10
Totals
Retrofits
771
771
771
771
771
509
509
509 509
506
6397
Cost
Meth1
7869597
7869597
7869597
7869597
7869597
5195363
5195763
5195363
5195363
5164742
65294179
Cost
Meth 2
5157990
5157990
5157990
5157990
5157990
3405210 :
3405210 3405210
3405210
3385140
42795930
Retrofits Based on Historical Averages Including Incentives (Includes Countv financial earlv replacement incentives)
Year 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Retrofits
964
925
887
810
771
500
450
400
350
341
6397
Cost
Meth1
9836996
9443516
9050037
8263077
7869597`
5103500
4593150
4082800
3572450
3480587
65295710
Cost
_
Meth 2
6447488
6189588
5931689 '
5415890
51579903345000
3010500
2676000
2341500
2281290
42796934
PROJECTED FUNDS AVAILABLE
1) County Funds
a. $369,310
National Demonstration Project Loan Funds
b. $92,500
Carryover TDC Funds
c. $67,045
Federal Earmark Grant
d. $1,260,750
Neighborhood 2 Pollution Reduction Credits
(Assumes 50% $7,500 fallback purchase and 50%
$3,500 issued rebate-see below)
e. $2,436,000
Neighborhood 1 Pollution Reduction Credits
(Assumes 100% $7,500 fallback purchase)
f. $1,296,500
Remaining Neighborhood 2 Land Sales
g. $30,000,000
Neighborhood 3 & 4 Land Sales
(Assumes 300 net of 344 gross acres to be sold at
$100,000 per acre)
$35,435,750* Estimated total County Funds available
* Does not include loan payment funds
Timinn of Cnnnty Fiend OvnilnhiIity
Year 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
a
$369,310
$0
$0
$0
$0`
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$369,310
b
$92,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$92,500
C
$67,045
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$67,045
d
$315,188
$315,188
$315,188
$315,188
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,260,750
e
$609,000
$609,000
$609,000
$609,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,436,000
f
$324,125
$324,125
$324,125
`$324,125
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,296,500
$0
$0
$0
$0`
$15M
$0
$0
$15M
$0
$0
$30M
Totals
$1,777,168
$1,248,313
$1,248,313
$1,248,313
$15M
$0
$0
$15M
$0
$0
$35.5M
Note: figures in table above do not include loan payment funds.
Additional Note: County could borrow funds against the future sale of
Neighborhood 3 & 4 land sales at market interest rates, to be paid back
within a specified term.
2) Other Funds
$1,260,750 Pahlisch Rebates (Assumes 360 rebates issued over
4 years)
DEQ Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
USDA Rural Development Loan Program
Private Lenders Mortgage, Refinance
5
BASIC ASSISTANCE MECHANISMS
County Programs
a) Full Grants
Up to $10,000 per retrofit - no eligibility restrictions
(Policy and Legal (gift of public funds) questions)
Partial Grants
Flat $1,000 per household - Cost $5,800,000
Either program could be limited to qualifying low income
households
Policy question-retroactivity for previously installed?
b) Cost Deferral Program
Based on State Dept of Revenue Program
County funds improvement, and a lien is established against the
property. County is paid back when the property is sold or goes
through probate. Owner can make payments if they wish. State
interest rate is 6% per year and is only available to those 62 or
older. County could adjust interest rate and/or eligibility. Cost-varies
depending on terms and limits.
c) Conventional Loan Program
Funds could be combined with the $350,000 National
Demonstration Project funds and used for loans to qualifying
households under the terms and limitations specified in the grant.
To encourage loan repayments, the interest rate could be set lower
than the Cost Deferral Program (b). Alternatively, Cost Deferral
could, be offered to qualifying lower income households only, while
a conventional loan could be offered to all households.
d) Reduced Cost System Purchase
County could purchase a significant quantity of nitrogen reducing
systems at `a potentially reduced rate and pass savings on or
reduce cost further to property owners. Sales to installers would
include requirement that savings are passed on to property owners.
22) Other Programs
a) Pahlisch Rebates - Flat $3,500 per retrofit
b) DEQ Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
Below market interest rates for qualifying loans. County would
apply for loan and re-loan funds to qualifying households.
Competitive award process. This program requires all borrowed
fund to be paid back within 10 years.
c) USDA Loan Program
d) Private Financing through conventional mortgage or refinance.
e) DEQ Pollution Control Tax Credit
Is intended to cover expenses for "on-the-ground improvements"
Note: this incentive would require an amendment to state law to
allow application for on-site septic systems.
f) Manufacturer Incentives -
7
LOGISTICAL ISSUES
1) Third Party Administrators - for loan administration, etc
a. Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC)
b. Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority (COHRA)
c. Private lending institutions
Grant funding for administration of grant expires 6-30-07.
Continued subsidization using CDD funds a question mark.
2) Incentivizing Early Retrofits
a. Loan Interest rate increases over time
b. First come, first served
c. Grants during first two years
d. Pahlisch rebate limited to Neighborhood 2 buildout
3) Retrofit Trigger Events
a. System Repair/Alteration
b. Time of Sale
c. Probate
d. Incentives
e. Deadline
4) Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Assistance
a. Policy question-Should the County assist in this area?
b. State law requires that the first two years of O&M is included in the
purchase and installation price to property owners
c. Assistance difficult to manage through loans or cost deferral
d. One option would be for the County to contract with a certified O&M
provider in order to subsidize or cover the cost to qualifying (lower
income), households.
e. Provide assistance to homeowner associations, etc. to create their
own district to provide O&M services
5) Board Policy Question: What shall be done with remaining funds, and
funds to be paid back in the future, after all retrofits have been
accomplished?
a. Long term well network monitoring
b. Riparian restoration to remove maximum nitrogen from
groundwater before it reaches the rivers
c. Ongoing onsite system repairs
d. Etc...
o~ -A
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2007
1. Update on Groundwater Project - Tom Anderson
2. Discussion of Law Enforcement District Agreements
3. Discussion of Jail Expansion Timeline - Dave Kanner
4. Approval of Resolution No. 2007-004, Transfer Appropriations - HIDTA
Director
5. Economic Development Grant Requests - Susan Ross
• NOVA Volunteer of the Year Event
. C.O. High School Rodeo
6. Update of Commissioners' Schedules; Meeting Details
7. Other Items
Executive Session, real property negotiations - ORS 192.660(2)(e) - Susan Ross
PLEASE NOTE:
At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners'
meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated.
Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.