Loading...
2017-187-Minutes for Meeting October 05,1987 Recorded 4/19/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-187 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners'Journal 04/19/2017 1:56:42 PM Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Bend, Oregon DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Audio Cassette Recording Titled: SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING LAZY RIVER SOUTH ACCESS ISSUES November 16, 1987; 2:00-3:30 PM. A meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was held on November 16, 1987. Commissioners present were Lois Prante, Dick Maudlin and Tom Throop. Also present were Rick [sham, County Counsel; County Administrator Mike Maier; and Public Works staff. There was a lengthy discussion about access issues regarding Lazy River South. They first addressed a revised cost estimate from Public Works on the cost of a southern bridge. The second issue was to generate the appropriate petition for the local improvement district. As of September, the County is able to work on LID issues, due to changes to state law. Counsel is drafting a petition for this purpose. Also, Public Works was going to do a revised count to determine the number of lots in the subdivision that could be assessed. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 16, 1987 Nage i or o There is a certain minimum value for property to be able to apply an LID assessment against that property. During the LID for the road there, it was found that some lots were not of sufficient value to have an assessment placed against them. There were probably a dozen lots not included due to low values. Another issue is placing a second LID over the first one, and whether there are additional lots that do not have sufficient values. This is an additional complication. The Assessor's Department has provided a list of everyone who owns lots there. There were a couple of other issues to discuss, such as reducing the assessment so it would work better for the people there. They also want to explore some strategies to reduce the potential for legal action with the community. There was a lawsuit from someone in the development, who felt that government should not be able to be in the business of an LID. Another issue for the County not doing LID's for some time was that it was not possible to recoup the costs involved, for issuance of the bonds and the legal work involved. The change at the State level was to allow counties to recoup those costs. There is a tentative cost summary for the Lazy River South Alternate Bridge, but it does not include the legal fees involved. This expense has to be considered before this can be finalized. As it stands now, it is under $7 per month per lot. One recent problem is of the 279 lots, 59 of them are actually delinquent on the first LID for the road. That is over 21% of the lots. This does make it difficult to do a second LID. Public Works representatives then explained what they did in the field and potential locations for the bridge. (A long discussion then occurred.) The best location is the State-owned lot, but they need to address the poor sight distance at that location. The cost estimate came out at $342,340 for the preferred location. There was a lengthy discussion about the breakdown for the various parts of construction. This amount does not include any legal work. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 16, 1987 Page 2 of 5 The timeframe for planning after project costs are in would be construction in the spring of 1989, when the water level is lowest. It is unlikely all of the petitions can be gathered and planning done any sooner. There was discussion about packaging the two LID's to bring the bond expense down. The group also discussed bonding this LID with any others for the same reason. In any case, it wouldn't come together before 1989. If there is a significant lawsuit occurring at that time, it would delay the project. The bond would not be as marketable in that case. However, at that point there would have been significant expenses which are not recoverable if the project does not go forward. The performance of the first LID is also a concern, with a large percentage who have not paid on their assessment. Others have already paid theirs off completely. Without getting the rest of the funds that are owed, it is hard to pay off the first LID. The County is still making payments at 12% for that bond, but the early payoff by some has helped. The bonding companies will want to know what the County has done to cure the delinquencies. However, this is backed by the full faith and credit of the County, and they consider more than just the one existing LID. There is no typical LID. Every property owner can run one year late on these payments without penalty, so a large number of people wait until the last minute. The County has to come up with the extra funds to cover this. There would be enough lots to move forward, including some that are on farm deferral. Therefore, there would be 17 more lots for this LID that were not included in the last one. The cost would come out at about $41 every six months for the property owners, for a total of about $485 per lot. They would include everything from the existing bridge south. (At this point, they referred to maps of the area, and a lengthy discussion ensured.) Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 16, 1987 Page 3 of 5 Counsel presented a draft of the petition, and explained how it works. The County would be the chief petitioner, with the Public Works Department being the main contact. There has to be a 60% signature level of the property owners. There are 296 lots total but some people own more than one lot. Concerns were voiced about whether the residents there will want to commit to spending money on this effort. The first LID cost estimates were about $1,700 per lot, and they got in enough signatures to proceed. There was about a 75% level of support. Staff feels that the reason is that a lot of people who do not live there wanted to see the property improved, and were willing to spend money for that reason. A few others from there were highly vocal in their objections. Using this first LID as a basis, staff feels that this project would be supported. If all property owners have to sign, this will slow the project substantially. Anyone who is on a contract or deed needs to sign. (There was a long discussion about the ramifications of the interest of lenders and others.) The group discussed the importance of the access to everyone in the area, in the case of a wildfire or other emergency. Otherwise they cannot get through. There was a discussion about alternatives, and there don't seem to be any. (The group reviewed this information at length.) It was pointed out that the County is required to have another access for safety reasons. However, people bought property there knowing about the access issues. The County has to do what it can to address this situation but needs the support of the community. There are problems everywhere in the County that the County wants to address as well. The Board stressed that the costs needs to be as accurate as possible for the bond issuance. It needs to include bonding costs, as well as the County's expenses of putting this together. Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 16, 1987 Page 4 of 5 Staff and others will proceed learning as much as they can, contacting the property owners and coming up with reliable cost estimates, to try to get this project done in 1989. I certify that the above is a true and accurate record of a meeting, as reproduced from a cassette tape identified as Minutes of a Business Meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, held on November 16, 1987. This record was completed subsequent to the presiding Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' tenure. Bonnie Baker For the Board of County Commissioners Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, November 16, 1987 Page 5 of 5