Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-22 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, JUNE 22, 2011 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Peter Gutowsky, Nick Lelack and Peter Russell, Community Development; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; and three other citizens, including Hillary Borrud and Richard Coe of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 2:00 p.m. _____________________________________ 1. Discussion of Small Wind Energy Text Amendment. Peter Gutowsky said they had an opportunity to talk with Commissioner DeBone about some of his concerns about the text amendment. Commissioner DeBone referred to item F, approved wind generators, and voiced concern about the wording, “all wind energy systems” having to be approved by the Oregon Department of Energy or the Energy Trust. Chair Baney asked about how flexibility can be added without compromising safety. Mr. Gutowsky said that the issue regarding public safety speaks mostly about net metering, and the energy providers will have certain requirements. The system needs to be certified if there is a power outage and the utility is working on a downed power line, the independent unit might continue to keep working and be a safety hazard for workers. If the unit is not net metering or is off the grid, that would not be a problem. Commissioner DeBone is uncomfortable about the County having jurisdiction. That should be covered by the utility company, so it is not necessary to have it in Code. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 1 of 7 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Pages Commissioner Unger stated that there are systems already engineered for this. Those who want to experiment can already do it if it is less than thirty feet tall. Taking out the section might create a potential safety problem. Commissioner DeBone asked if anyone could do something if it is less than thirty feet tall. Mr. Gutowsky said the purpose of the Code is to address accessory units, and Code allows just thirty feet. This allows people who want to go above that height with certified systems. In any case, they would have to work with the Energy Trust. It is up to the Board whether this clause is felt redundant. Commissioner DeBone stated that he is not comfortable with naming these entities in Code. Laurie Craghead said it is probably hard to do much if the structure is less than thirty feet. Mr. Gutowsky stated that the quality control is in place if someone wants to net meter are very robust. The structure needs to be compatible with building code and permitting. Chair Baney asked if there might be other groups out there who could handle the certification. Commissioner DeBone said that he feels there is a lot more potential danger with the structure itself and not the net metering part. He feels that there is safety already built in and the utility company will be very involved in this. He asked if there is other language in Code that is specific about certifications of any kind. Ms. Craghead said that with Measure 49, it is better to start out more restrictive and make something less restrictive over time if appropriate. You don’t want someone to think you are taking something away. Chair Baney asked what role the State has in this kind of thing. Mr. Gutowsky replied that you have to come to terms with two potential users. Some will want to net meter and there will be mandatory requirements from the utilities and others. The other is if someone wants to be off the grid and is not contributing to power outside their property. The question is whether it is necessary to certify these units. Chair Baney said that if you are not going to tie into the grid, you should have to abide by the structural requirements but should not have to be a part of one of the certified systems. Mr. Gutowsky stated that most people would buy a tested, certified system anyway. Mr. Lelack said that all wind energy systems have to comply structurally, so there are some safeguards built in. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Pages Chair Baney is comfortable that if someone has a stand-alone unit, not tied into the grid, and meets permitting, they should be able to do this. If it is going into the grid, other requirements should be in place. She asked if this wording is a possibility. Commissioner Unger feels that to create less problems with neighbors and others, they need the predictability that a certified unit would provide. Mr. Lelack said that unless a view corridor is otherwise protected, it would not matter what type of unit goes up. Commissioner DeBone asked about removing the system at some point. He asked what “removed” means. Ms. Craghead said that the same requirements are there for cell towers that are no longer being used. Ms. Craghead said that they don’t want to end up with a bunch of rusting towers. Commissioner DeBone said that if they bring it to the ground and it is out of sight, it should be left alone. Commissioner Unger agreed, as long as the unit is out of view. Deliberations will begin at the Board business meeting on Monday, June 27. 2. Discussion of Road Maintenance Funding Options. Dave Kanner said the topic of road maintenance funding has come up for at least the past five years. He introduced some ideas in this regard (a copy of which is attached for reference). Cost-cutting measures, including staffing reductions, have occurred but it is still a very big problem. The increased tipping fee and the SDC’s have not done well with the economy in the bad shape that it is. There is one more year of the SRS money at a significantly reduced level, with increasing costs for road maintenance. He feels there needs to be modes identified to cover these costs. It may mean gravel roads instead of paved roads. Many of them were paved by local improvement districts, and the property owners won’t be happy if the County won’t continue to maintain them. So, local roads that are paved but not paid by LID’s should be analyzed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Pages Tom Blust provided a pie chart showing road fund revenues at this point. Some of the funding streams may be going away or will remain greatly reduced. Another big concern is the motor vehicle revenue, the largest amount, has been reduced. This means to him that this is not that reliable either. He discussed some of the options, and how motor vehicle revenue is distributed statewide. With the remaining dollars at hand, they have to be careful with what is left. Mr. Kanner said all the sealing is being contracted out. Most contractors do not have the equipment or work force necessary for this. Commissioner Baney said it all needs to be viewed as a package and not eliminate what is already there. Tom Blust spoke about the transportation and utility fee, which would be implemented by County ordinance. Mr. Kanner said the option he started with has to do with letting some rural roads go to gravel. There are about 280 miles, and 95 miles of those were improved through a local improvement district. (He referred to an oversized map at this time.) Mr. Blust noted that some roads seem remote but may access a large subdivision or are off other maintained roads. She asked if there are roads that are isolated and may not need the same attention. Mr. Blust stated that it would not be a huge savings to ignore some of these roads, and ranchers or farmers depend on them even though they do not have a lot of traffic. Chair Baney feels that to let roads go is not an option she wants to pursue. Commissioner Unger wants to find other funding sources for the road network that is there now. Chair Baney says that perhaps a group can look at this and ask the community what is important to them, and to give their ideas on how to handle the shortfalls. Let them analyze the options, or maybe there are other options not yet considered. There might be a variety of options needed to come up with the amount of funding required. Commissioner Unger feels the education of the public is critical. It is a system and should be viewed in that way. There is a point when people will have to decide what standard they are willing to pay for. They need to understand what it costs and where those dollars go. Commissioner DeBone asked about the timeframe that should be pursued. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Pages Peter Russell said that the transportation plan is a topic of discussion right now and maybe this could be tied into that. There is $250 million in the TSP that needs funding. Mr. Blust stated that it is for modernization and is a completely different pot of money. Chair Baney wants to make sure the timing is such that if they need to go on the ballot, it will be feasible. Mr. Kanner stated that the people who worked on the transportation plan may be willing to work on this type of project. Chair Baney suggested that it should include the cities, COACT and the State, depending on the scope of the ideas. The County will likely end up having to take the lead. Commissioner DeBone asked if they are looking at just finding the $3 to $4 million needed or if they want to consider going back to gravel roads. He is not sportive of doing that, either, and does not feel the cost savings would be adequate. Stable and adequate revenue sources need to be found. They are talking only about maintenance and preservation, not new roads. Mr. Kanner stated that the overlay projects are the biggest items, and many of these are contracted out. He added that ODOT’s projections or estimates are not reliable, and collections of gas tax revenues are far below what was expected. Mr. Kolb said when the funding comes in, they analyze which areas are the most critical to address first. Sometimes they have to carry over from one year to the next to get a bigger project done within a certain timeframe. Also, the longer you wait to fix a road, the more expensive the work becomes. Commissioner Unger said there is more to it than just preservation and maintenance. There is the bigger picture of increased population, how to handle local roads when the major highways are changed or improved, and how to deal with the development of industrial or commercial areas to encourage economic opportunities. He does not feel that the Board will be able to push forward on any of the options without the buy-in of the public, and that will take a group to study it and educate citizens. In the meantime, the system will continue to decline. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Pages Commissioner DeBone would like to have a work session with such a committee to be sure they know the task. Commissioner Unger feels that a Commissioner should be a part of the committee. The others agreed. They felt that representatives of the cities or other groups should be brought in when appropriate. Commissioner Unger asked if there are any sources of funding within the County that might help in the short-term. Mr. Kanner said whatever is available would be just a Band-Aid, and would take away from other programs that need adequate funding. Commissioner DeBone asked if the local improvement districts would be open to contribute more to their roads. Mr. Blust said that they collect already to maintain their roads, and not everyone could or would be able to pay more. This is a statewide problem that affects some areas in a lot more serious ways than others. George Kolb asked how much time should be spent on this since some of it may end up before the voters, who are not open to increased taxes too much at this time. Chair Baney said the transient room tax issue that went down included some concerns that muddied the waters, along with the collapse of financial markets about that time that created a negative economic environment. 3. Update of Commissioners’ Meetings and Schedules. Chair Baney does not have to be in Salem next Monday night. The legislature is wrapping up this year’s session. The Commissioners discussed the various meetings on their calendars for the balance of the week and month. 4. Other Items. No other items were discussed.