Loading...
2009-1233-Minutes for Meeting May 06,2009 Recorded 6/2/2009COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS CJ 2009.1233 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 06/02/2009 08:34:!7 AM II 111]! I I1IIIIIIIIIIII I III I III 2 3233 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page 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 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad, Barbara Rich, Cynthiq Smidt and Todd Cleveland, Community Development Department; David Givans, Auditor; and four other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. 1. Discussion of La Pine Financial Assistance Advisory Committee Final Recommendations. Tom Anderson said that members of the committee were invited to attend but none is able to at this time. Following a meeting of the Board and committee last summer, staff continued to meet with the committee to clarify some points and add to the discussion. There were meetings held in November and December. A final list of recommendations was the goal. Some recommendations were related to financial aspects, while others were not. The discussion points were detailed after the meetings. No further meetings were held pending the election in March. A comprehensive list related to financial assistance on which there seems to be consensus was developed. He said he hopes to convey a summary of what the committee felt was important. There are some additional questions and logistical issues to address as well. At this time, he presented information and recommendations from the committee. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 1 of 6 Mr. Anderson said that the committee did not want destination resorts to benefit from a sewer district; that they should pay like for like. Dave Kanner asked how this would be quantified. Mr. Anderson said that new customers already have to pay to hook into a system. Mr. Kanner suggested that perhaps they are thinking that a new area would want to hook into an existing system and not have to go through the feasibility process. Mr. Anderson stated that it would be difficult to do this; that any new development, especially a destination resort, would have to do its own feasibility study. A request for a voluntary contribution towards the fund could be requested of any new development, but he believes it cannot be automatically required. In regard to the Sunriver sewer system extension, there was indication that the neighborhoods located nearby were very interested in the feasibility study. Laurie Craghead clarified that it could be that portions of a study may be useable for a new study. This type of information is public record, and there is no way to force people to pay another entity back for work that was already done. Commissioner Unger asked about integrity testing existing systems. It was pointed out that testing could not be required unless there is an obvious failure. These could only be done upon request. Todd Cleveland said it is irrelevant whether a system is failing; the nitrates will still get into the soil. A failing system can be a health problem because of pathogens, but that has little to do with nitrates. The old steel tanks are being replaced at every opportunity in any case. In regard to a guarantee that funds generated by the new neighborhood be dedicated towards groundwater protection, Mr. Anderson said that the Board cannot obligate future Boards in this manner; there is legislation detailing how this funding can be used. Ms. Craghead stated that it could be used for groundwater protection but the law might not be that restrictive. Commissioner Luke said that a plan could be written that would take an actual vote to change. A comprehensive plan was brought up at several meetings regarding how funds should be used. Several recommendations were made. Funding will be needed to study model predictions, so if it does not come from the available funds, this will have to be budgeted over time from other sources. The amount would be about $75,000. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Commissioner Baney asked how the requested oversight committee would monitor funds. It could be much like the current advisory committee's function. There was no clear-cut recommendation on how much of the funding should be for grants and how much should be for loans. Consensus was that the deferred loan program would be desirable in some cases. This type of program is one that NeighborImpact currently offers; however, there are currently some issues with the program due to the loss in property values, when an owner may have too much income to qualify. Mr. Anderson said that some grants might be available through the Clean Groundwater Act for these types of situations. Laurie Craghead stated that the sale of foreclosed properties results in the County's share being about 20% maximum, and it might be used for a variety of things. It could be used to support the functions of Property Management to reduce the amount of general funds going to that department. In regard to using funds to pay for staff, the committee does not want this to happen. They want this to be funded in a different way. However, funding for other things, such as public safety, would take precedence over funding the work of a committee, through decisions made during the budget process. System Development Charges will not work since public infrastructure is required and the money cannot be spent on private property. Other types of fees for new construction may be investigated. Mr. Kanner pointed out that there is already an ordinance in place that requires an additional fee for new construction, related to sewage disposal. Much of this might change if the Department of Environmental Quality takes control of the issue and mandates certain things be done. At that point, the County will have little control over many of the concerns listed. Commissioner Baney said that she had hoped that the committee would be more definitive when it comes to how much should be spent for certain things, rather than leaving much of this undefined. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 3 of 6 2. Text Amendment to Chapter 18.16 of Title 18, the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Paul Blikstad said there was no comment on the current proposed wording for EFU zoning. This would primarily put the County into compliance to laws adopted over the past few sessions. Under non-farm dwellings, based on State law passed in 1993, new parcels could not be created after that time without going through another process. However, if a parcel is largo enough and is irrigated, parcels have been created in Deschutes County in the past. The other involves large totally dry acreage. Under the section dealing with yards, side yard setbacks are the primary issue. Mr. Blikstad feels that if it specifies a farm might be affected, that the property be specially assessed as such to be considered a farm. Mr. Blikstad said that it is very rare that someone can qualify under farm income criteria, since it is so high relative to what most people can make through farming. Therefore, in most cases in Central Oregon a home cannot be placed on a property as a farm dwelling. Discussion then occurred over what might be considered high value farmland or high value crops in the area. 3. Discussion of Central Oregon Irrigation District Appeal Hearing. Cynthia Smidt said there is a hearing next week on this appeal, which involves a lot of record verification. The issue is whether the establishment of the road created two different parcels. COIC feels that it did, but staff does not. Much depends on when the road went through. The Lovinger case addressed this type of issue. The road was not deeded or conveyed for highway use. The property was under public ownership at the time and there was likely no need seen for a deed or other conveyance. Commissioner Baney pointed out that the road made a large part of the property unusable. Commissioner Luke noted that in years past, often there were no deeds and there was little concern about the consequences. Land often goes in and out of public ownership. Ms. Smidt said that the Hearings Officer did consider changes in stewardship within State agencies. She stated that the lot does not meet minimum lot size at this time in order to be developed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Ms. Craghead said that there was no opposition to the COIC application except from the County. It is unlikely that there are very many lots in a similar situation along major highways. However, a lot of parcels are divided by roads. Ms. Craghead stated that the biggest concern is that the State had ownership at the time the road was established, and did not see the need to have deeds created. Commissioner Baney asked why this is an issue since the lot is not large enough to develop. Ms. Craghead said the zoning does not affect the legal status. Commissioner Unger stated that if it were allowed to be a legal lot, does it depend on the desired use. For instance, they would want to use it for a small hydro project, which benefits the public interest. It would take a zone change to be able to put a residence on it. Commissioner Luke said that if no one participates in the hearing, he or she does not have the right to appeal a decision. He feels that at the time, the owner chose to create two lots by the division created by the highway. This is a very unique situation involving a public use and a public benefit. 4. Other Items. Mr. Kanner stated that in March, John Thomas of La Pine asked the Board to make a determination on the use of his property. Mr. Kanner worked with staff to let him know his options. There are no quick options in this case. The easiest way would be to have his land designated commercial within the City of La Pine through its comprehensive plan. In the meantime, Code enforcement could be held in abeyance. Mr. Anderson agreed, but there is an issue with use of the property during that time. The owner had made improvements to the building after he purchased it, without benefit of permits. This could constitute a health or safety risk. Working to designate the property commercial is the fastest way to help Mr. Thomas' with his concerns. Mr. Kanner said that in regard to House Bill 2228 (the Metolius basin), it would not be a violation for the Board to advocate for or against it, but such advocacy could set up an issue for an appeal. Commissioner Baney said she supports what they are trying to accomplish, which is low impact, productive ownership. Mr. Kanner stated that it needs to be clear that any review that the Board does will be fair and unbiased during the land use process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Luke added that the Board follows State law but tries to encourage the highest and best use of land, no matter where the land is. The preservation of F-1 land is an important consideration. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3: 30 p.m. DATED this 6th Day of May 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tammy Baney, Ch r DennisRR. Luke, Vice Chair ATTEST: di/I.- Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 6of6 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, MAY 6, 2009 1. La Pine Financial Assistance Advisory Committee Final Recommendations - Tom Anderson 2. Text Amendment to Chapter 18.16 of Title 18, the Exclusive Farm Use Zone - Paul Blikstad 3. Discussion of Central Oregon Irrigation District Appeal Hearing - Cynthia Smidt 4. Other Items 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. if you 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. o~ G ON O n _ O C .E ;N- D El co a... L V ~ . O C f y_ v M I 1 2 u N N c O YJ „ Q O `f co a ~ ~ d ~ O O n . South County Financial Assistance Advisory Committee Final Recommendations May 5, 2009 Committee Members: Robert Ray, Vicky Jackson, Pam Luettich, June Ramey, Martha Bauman, Roger Conard Staff: Tom Anderson, Todd Cleveland The following is a summary of recommendations from the Financial Assistance Advisory Committee offered during: • The original meetings held by the committee in answering specific questions from the Board of County Commissioners • Two follow-up meetings held in Fall, 2008 • E-mail communications between the committee and staff Recommendations: 1) Property owners with existing homes are the priority for financial assistance. Financial assistance funds should not be used to subsidize new construction. 2) Although all income levels should have access to financial assistance funds, assistance should be targeted to low income households. 3) Funds should be available for feasibility studies for sewers. a. The county should investigate cost sharing for the community requesting the feasibility study. b. Specifically on the Sunriver sewer system expansion feasibility study, if any future major development (such as, but not limited to, destination resorts) should benefit from the study, then they should be made to reimburse the financial assistance fund equal to that benefit. 4) Funds should be targeted to high nitrate areas, which typically are areas with older homes in higher density concentrations. 5) Assurances or guarantees must be provided by the County that funds generated by the New Neighborhood in the City of La Pine will be dedicated to future actions tied to groundwater protection and property owner financial assistance. 6) A comprehensive plan should be developed that accomplishes the following things related to use of funds. a. Identifies who will administer grants and loans (should not be the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC). b. Funds should not be used to validate nitrate loading model predictions. c. Provides for an oversight committee on the use of funds. d. How much of assistance should be grants versus loans. e. Would address the long term adequacy of funds. 7) Long-term, cost deferred loans (no payments) are a good use of funds. 8) Assistance associated with 'time of sale' upgrade requirements is not recommended. 9) Funds should not be used for groundwater protection education programs. 10) Purchase of Pollution Reduction Credits (PRCs) from property owners who have installed nitrogen reducing systems is recommended. 11) Proceeds from the sale of high groundwater ("red") lots should accrue to the financial assistance fund. 12) Financial assistance funds should definitely not be used to pay county staff. 13)The exploration of a System Development Charge (SDC) that would require new construction to contribute to the financial assistance fund. This would include expansion or construction of properties located on Destination Resorts in the study area. If determined to be viable and equitable the assessment should be enacted. Connie Thomas From: Tom Anderson Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 4:29 PM To: Dave Kanner; Connie Thomas Subject: FW: 5/4/09 Board of Commissioner Work session - FAC Recommendations Attachments: FAAC Rec's 5-09 with comments.doc Dave/Connie: Attached below is an additional handout for the Board work session next Wedneasday. Tom From: Tom Anderson Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 4:28 PM To: 'AUTO PARTS MART Owner Cc: 'Martha Bauman'; 'June Ramey'; 'Pam Luettich'; 'Vicky Jackson'; Todd Cleveland Subject: RE: 5/4/09 Board of Commissioner Work session - FAC Recommendations FAC Members, Thank you for your additional comments. Rather than try to incorporate them into the list of recommendations I previously sent out, I have copied them onto a separate document (attached) which I will forward to the Board and have posted prior to the meeting next Wednesday. Hope to see you then. Tom Tom Anderson Director Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR. 97701 541/385-1704 541/385-1764 (fax) toma@co.deschutes.or.us FAAC Rec's 5-09 with comments.... From: Tom Anderson Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:49 PM To: 'AUTO PARTS MART Owner' Cc: Martha Bauman; June Ramey; Pam Luettich; Vicky Jackson Subject: 5/4/09 Board of Commissioner Work session - FAC Recommendations Robert and FAC, Attached are the recommendations with your corrections. Robert, I changed 11 & 13 verbatim to your suggestions. I also re-worked #1 to make it more generic to financial assistance directed to existing home owners and removed any reference to upgrading on-site systems. Barring any further corrections from the FAC, I will forward these to be posted on the meeting agenda website in advance of the meeting. I hope most of you can make it next week. The meeting again is at 1:30 in the Board's upstairs conference room. Any other members of the public are also welcome to attend. Tom Tom Anderson Director Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR. 97701 541/385-1704 541/385-1764 (fax) toma@co.deschutes.or.us << File: FAAC Recommendations 5-09.doc Additional Comments from FAC Committee Members From Robert Ray: I want to emphasize that this is only reflects my recommendations if the County retains control of the issue. Should the County rescind its powers back to the DEQ I would want to insure that solutions the DEQ comes up with would have the access to the solution fund for mitigating the future possible contamination with County oversight on expenditures. From Martha Bauman: I am inclined to say a lot will depend on what direction the county will take now, since LOCAL RULE was defeated. I feel that a lot of our suggestions will not be heeded regardless. #3. My own personal feeling is that the extra money should be used to protect our groundwater, as long as the money would be used to benefit us, the property owners, and not commercial, then using money for sewer feasibility studies in the right places seems reasonable. If someone uses the money for a feasibility study and they benefit from it, such as SUNRIVER, then SUNRIVER should reimburse all the funds that were used. SUNRIVER or NO ONE ELSE should benefit from monies that were meant to PROTECT OUR GROUNDWATER. #11. Proceeds from the sale of RED LOTS, county owned, where sewer service would be available all the PROCEEDS should accrue to the financial solution fund. When the county makes a final decision as to how they plan to proceed, the FAAC, should be able to change or add to the suggestions regarding how the Financial Solution Funds are to be distributed. From Pam Luettich - comments in italics: Recommendations: 1) Property owners with existing homes are the priority for financial assistance. Financial assistance funds should not be used to subsidize new construction. 2) Although all income levels should have access to financial assistance funds, assistance should be targeted to low income households. 1 agree to a degree, however there are many programs out there that specifically target lower income households. Given our current economic crisis and that the majority of families, though not technically low income, are just above the threshold this could create a severe financial burden on the majority of households. An equitable solution for distribution of all funds based upon the full financial picture of a case by case scenario should be warranted and would better assist the entire South Deschutes County. 3) Funds should be available for feasibility studies for sewers. a. The county should investigate cost sharing for the community requesting the feasibility study. That being said the County should also seek additional grants etc. that would support these ventures without touching the targeted funds for financial assistance. b. Specifically on the Sunriver sewer system expansion feasibility study, if any future major development (such as, but not limited to, destination resorts) should benefit from the study, then they should be made to reimburse the financial assistance fund equal to that benefit.. I agree, however I would take this one step further and stipulate that any sewer expansion for purposes other than residential be made to not only reimburse the fund but also would have to pay additional fees such as application fees or the like. These funds are for the residents and not the businesses. Additionally. Businesses fall under a different category for Nitrate Reduction etc. therefore have additional rights and responsibilities as mandated by the Federal Government - let's not overlook that. 4) Funds should be targeted to high nitrate areas, which typically are areas with older homes in higher density concentrations.. I personally would also like to see the County take on the responsibility to source homes with septic systems that have a high likelihood of failing, perhaps that of homes where systems were installed say 20+ years ago, those homes should have their septics tested for integrity and they should be the first to receive any allocated funds as they would be the major contributors to the supposed Nitrate issue. 5) Assurances or guarantees must be provided by the County that funds generated by the New Neighborhood in the City of La Pine will be dedicated to future actions tied to groundwater protection and property owner financial assistance. These guarantees must be written in such as way to bind all further County Staff/Commissioners and not just the current staff. 6) A comprehensive plan should be developed that accomplishes the following things related to use of funds. a. Identifies who will administer grants and loans (should not be the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC). This should be ran through an RFP process and a committee in place to assess and determine the best possible loan administrator. The County MUST look outside of our 4 walls (Central Oregon) for the best possible administrator. b. Funds should not be used to validate nitrate loading model predictions. Validation must occur but the County must come up with the funds for this through either additional grants or reallocation of existent County Funds. c. Provides for an oversight committee on the use of funds. d. How much of assistance should be grants versus loans. e. Would address the long term adequacy of funds. 7) Long-term, cost deferred loans (no payments) are a good use of funds. I would caution against this as that means a balloon payment scenario which can add up to much more than the original loan amount. In a balloon payment scenario you still compound interest monthly (or daily depending upon the loan guidelines) and since that interest is not paid monthly you end up with a huge balloon of interest + payment at the end of specified period of time. This can really create a scenario of individuals facing a huge payment, not having the money to pay and then losing everything. 8) Assistance associated with `time of sale' upgrade requirements is not recommended. "Time of Sale" upgrades should only be implemented upon individuals who do not pass septic inspections at the time of sale. This is due diligence for all loans thus would be a normal process. Upgrades should only be imposed if issues are found to the integrity of the system. 9) Funds should not be used for groundwater protection education programs. Funds for programs such as these should be sought through grants etc. and/or reallocation of separate County Funds. 10) Purchase of Pollution Reduction Credits (PRCs) from property owners who have installed nitrogen reducing systems is recommended. However, property owners should have the same ability to sale a credit to the County for work they undertake. Let's not create an unfair scenario here. 11) Proceeds from the sale of high groundwater ("red") lots should accrue to the financial assistance fund. I still highly suspect "red lot" usage and sales. If you are seriously looking at the effect of development on the Community, Ground Water and Stream Health these should be protected lots - a riparian zone only. 12) Financial assistance funds should definitely not be used to pay county staff. Absolutely not. The County needs to pay staff through their own budgetary process. 13)The exploration of a System Development Charge (SDC) that would require new construction to contribute to the financial assistance fund. This would include expansion or construction of properties located on Destination Resorts in the study area. If determined to be viable and equitable the assessment should be enacted. A lot of details needs to be discussed further. While 1 agree in theory this could be derailed easily and easily altered into something else.