Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-23 Work Session Minutes 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 WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Tracy Scott, Personnel; George Read, Terri Payne and Nick Lelack, Community Development; and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel. Also in attendance was media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and eight other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Discussion of Endorsement of National Career Readiness Certificate. This item was presented last week but the Commissioners wanted some time to review the information. Commissioner Unger supports the program, as he feels it would help with making placements more successful. He added that having a diploma by itself does not necessarily mean the person can do what the job requires. This can help the employer and potential employee come up with the best match. Chair Baney feels as long as it is non-discriminatory, she supports the effort. She would want to revisit it if a fee is attached later. Commissioner DeBone said that he feels it is an unnecessary layer of intrusion and does not support it. UNGER: Move support of the program and endorsement of the certificate. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: No. (Split vote.) BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 1 of 6 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Pages Erik Kropp said the County could announce that the NCRC is welcome and people are encouraged to apply. It could also be offered to employees who might want this kind of training, but on their own time. 2. Comprehensive Plan Review. Terri Payne introduced the next part of the Comprehensive Plan review, which deals with resource lands. The use of these lands is tightly regulated, and the intent was originally to preserve natural resources through agricultural lands, and for economic reasons. Urban expansion into rural areas creates conflict, and the cost is high for infrastructure, etc. There is also a loss of open space and natural beauty. Incentives were encouraged to mitigate the impacts to the property owners. Goal 3 required an inventory of farmland. Soil classes in eastern Oregon are 1 through 6, but the Goal talks about other lands not suitable for agricultural or property that impact nearby farmland. In 1979, the County did not classify all lands, but looked at what was being irrigated. If it was not already platted or developed, and was not forest land, the remaining land was classified as agricultural. In 1992, a study was done and it was found that irrigation made the difference, so seven new subzones were developed. The State requires a minimum of 80 acres for farmland and 160 for grazing, but the County has a few subzones that are below the requirement for minimum lot size. Nick Lelack said that a lot of people from other areas point out the difference and question why the County would want to have properties even smaller in size. Ms. Payne stated that the climate and altitude have a lot to do with things as well. Farming in this area cannot be competitive. Public input was obtained from large acreage commercial farmers, who say farming is not profitable in this area. Some had been trying to do so for years. Small farmers asked for more flexibility in the use of their land. The income test for farm help is a factor. There is not a lot of support for what they want to do. Hobby farmers like to grow their own food and like the open space, but it is not profitable. The Planning Commission was very involved in this phase and some want to rethink totally how this is handled. However, legally there is not a lot of flexibility. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Pages The policies look first at meeting State requirements. It may be possible for someone to come in and prove their land is not suitable for agricultural and get the zoning changed. Supplemental activities were analyzed as well. Agri- tourism may be one way to supplement farm uses. Legislation was passed last session that allows people to amend mapping errors. It has to be done in conjunction with DLCD. Chair Baney asked how to defend the policies that are decided upon. Ms. Payne stated it would be the applicant’s responsibility to state that the land was not accurately mapped. Mr. Lelack stated that it could cost thousands of dollars just for the process, not including whatever has to be paid to specialists. If the County initiates the change, there would be less cost involved. Dave Kanner asked about policy 2.29. Ms. Payne said this does not include events but other agricultural uses. There is no policy included to support a study of private parks or events. Mr. Lelack said this is the time and place to investigate this issue. Commissioner Unger asked about MUA zoning. Ms. Payne said MUA is considered rural residential. She is not sure of the exact differences between RR-10 and MUA-10, but knows that MUA counts more towards residential than agricultural. Mr. Lelack stated that this is the first county to try to come up with a definition of agri-tourism. A legislative concept is being discussed at the State level, but has probably not been introduced. The use would have to be subordinate to the agricultural use. Commissioner Unger noted that the ‘big look’ did not get the attention it needed. He asked if the idea is still viable. Mr. Lelack said that the idea of allowing counties more flexibility did not make it into the newer version. In regard to farm worker housing, there are a lot of restrictions under State law. Commissioner Unger asked how they could help to support generational farming and keep families on farms. Ms. Payne said that an additional residence might be allowed, but the criteria are very inflexible. The biggest issue is that no one can seem to make a profit by farming. The money generated locally from farming is a small amount compared to other uses of the land. LUBA has determined that profitability is not a factor in how the land is used. However, it is hard to not consider economic viability when building this document. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Pages Mr. Lelack said that there are a lot of factors to consider, such as the poor soils, the rocks, and the necessity for irrigation. Ms. Payne said the State wants to preserve agricultural land in whatever form. There is only so much that can be done. Mr. Lelack would like to see more flexibility regarding how people can use their farmland, to keep the land in or available for agricultural use. Commissioner Unger stated that success is measured by economics within cities. Ms. Payne replied that the counties are supposed to protect the resources and support agriculture. The public emphasized that they can only make a living if they have outside work. State law got very detailed when lobbying occurred and someone got specific wording put into law. These changes do not always assist the local farming community. The focus should be how to help farmers be successful within the confinements of the law. Commissioner Unger asked if the last twenty years were examined to see if change is needed. In the debate, a lot of the language was softened to allow more consideration of potential uses. This is something on which the Board has already taken a stand. In regard to forestlands, the language came out mostly from agricultural rules. Chair Baney said she is hesitant to include language related to Skyline Forest. Ms. Payne indicated there was a lot of debate when the Skyline Forest Authority was formed in recent years. Chair Baney asked if it is necessary for this specific language to be in the Comprehensive Plan. A lot of the language talks about coordinating and cooperating, but it might not be beneficial. Mr. Lelack said that it was hard to get agreement within the Planning Commission as well. He thought they could shorten up the language and be a little more vague if that would help. Commissioner Unger asked about the challenges of weeds, and locations such as the Lower Bridge dicolite mining site. He feels a management plan is needed. Ms. Payne said there are two goals that affect water resources; Goal 5 for wetlands and Goal 6 for land, air and water quality. Goal 6 says that local entities are tasked with making sure there is no pollution. It is not very specific. It is the longest chapter and there are a number of issues tied to it. Most of the debate was on the role of the County, although there was a fair amount of agreement. Ms. Craghead added that the focus is mostly on the Deschutes River basin, but there are other locations as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Pages Section 2.5.5 encourages conservation on the part of the County, mostly by setting an example. Section 2.5.18 has to do with south County; identifying water quality problems, sewers and similar issues. Section 2.5.25 has to do with intergovernmental agreements with irrigation districts and others. They want to know about potential lot line adjustments and other changes to the land since it can affect how they use their systems. Mr. Lelack stated that a lot of input has come in from nonprofits and others who want support when they apply for grants or other funding. Section 2.6 refers to wildlife, a Goal 5 resource. There is a wildlife combining zones for migration, animal ranges, and specific sites. The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife was asked for an up to date inventory. They talked to federal fish & wildlife and the BLM, and put together a consolidated report. It has been somewhat controversial. The initial idea was to update the inventory during the comprehensive plan process. The County will have to review ordinances to make sure they are well coordinated. Fish & Wildlife recommend adding the spotted frog found along the rivers. The Planning Commission wanted to ignore the study and felt that these agencies should not be giving recommendations. The public was divided, with concerns about sage grouse and wildlife protection in general, but also property rights. Section 2.6.2 addresses this. The Planning Commission still does not support including the interagency study information. Mr. Lelack stated that the Planning Commission wanted to refer just to input from expert sources. They are trying to look at wildlife, fire, water and road issues. It is a shame to have expert input and not pay attention to it. The combining zone applies usually along rivers and roads. Staff recommends the language but the Planning Commission said it is too specific. It was left in as a placeholder. 3. Update of Commissioners’ Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner Unger stated that there are nine points of concern over HB 2229, regarding the watershed council. _____________________________