Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-03 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 3, 2010 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney; Dave Kanner, Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, during various portions of the meeting, Tom Anderson, George Read, Nick Lelack, Todd Cleveland, Peter Gutowsky, Kevin Harrison, Dan Haldeman and Will Groves, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Update. Cheryl Howard said the last time the County awarded the Big Chainring was in 2004. The group has revised its by-laws, its annual goals, and will bring back the Big Chainring award to the Board in 2010. They also have a “Safe Sidewalk” award now; for those businesses that are not just complying but exceeding requirements in keeping snow cleared, etc. The revised by-laws are meant to clarify and strengthen the relationship with the Board. They want to know how to integrate into County processes, not just with the Road Department but in other ways as well. This document is meant to establish the true core values of the Committee. Jim Stowe talked about the scenic bikeway concept, with a focus on linking the cities in a non-motorized way. There is an opportunity to apply for a grant through the State. This work will enhance quality of life and tourism. He discussed the upcoming race schedule and tourism-creating events, several being large ones that create multi-day stays for contestants and their families. These generate a great deal of revenue in overnight stays and restaurants. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010 Page 1 of 8 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010 Page 2 of 8 Pages Matthew Martin advises governmental bodies of a new group of people on the Committee with a newfound focus and goals. He provided information on projects they have been involved in, including federal, state, county and nonprofit. They want to have more impact and be more involved in the process from the beginning, especially concerning safety, Code amendments, road projects and development in general. They want to know how to be more involved in these processes on a formal basis. Commissioner Unger encouraged the group to be more proactive. There is a network of people actively working on bicycle issues. Ms. Howard said she wants the committee to be more available to be a part of the process. Commissioner Luke stated that much of the work is done by staff, so close contact with them is a good idea. Commissioner Baney added that there could be more communication. Commissioner Luke said that it is a good idea for them to keep in touch with Nick Lelack and Peter Russell of Community Development. Kevin Tanski said that he is new to the group and wants to see more interagency involvement. He has been involved with federal agencies, ODOT and citizen groups, and wants BPAC to be considered a resource for all of them. They served in an advisory capacity when working with the City of Sisters, helping them shorten the process when developing planning to benefit all involved. He noted that Peter Russell has been especially helpful in this regard. Commissioner Luke asked if they had been in touch with COIC. Projects achieved and planned focus on the livability of the County, especially in regard to health and safety. Peter Russell said that the transportation system plan documents include input from this group. 2. Update on Sunriver Sewer Feasibility Study. Tom Anderson said that this process has been ongoing. They are very close to a finished product. He wanted to discuss this today, in advance of a meeting with DEQ later this week. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010 Page 3 of 8 Pages Steve Runner of Sunriver pointed out the relevant areas on an oversized map. The DEQ mandated upgrades of the Sunriver sewer system, and Sunriver was asked by the DEQ if they could look at incorporating some of the outlying areas into the system. They have worked closely with the County’s GIS mapping. They looked all the way to State Recreation Road, and divided the area into smaller sections. The area north and west is closest to Sunriver and has the densest lots. They also looked at the secondary area to see if that is feasible. A total of about 4,000 lots might be served, and that is the basis of the numbers developed. They met with the DEQ and agreed that was the criteria to be used. They then compared costs of the system, trying to be complete and conservative. This includes construction costs, design and engineering, project management and legal costs, and contingencies of 15 to 20%. They feel this is realistic and conservative. For a collection system feasibility study, they need to make decision early on how to approach the need. They used W&H Pacific for help with this. It would be a low-pressure sewer system since the area is relatively flat. This seems to be the best fit. This includes grinder pumps at each lot, going to a centralized location. Liquids go into the STEP system, but because of customers bringing a full load to the system already, they did not want to differentiate. Each lot would need to have its own pump, at a cost of about $5,400 per lot. This cost is the same regardless where it is. The other cost comes in when it is connected. The next component is the collection system – piping. Dense areas with a lot of development and closer to Sunriver are less expensive. The cost for that is $6,700 per lot, including the pump. Further south, where the lots are farther apart and the population is less dense, the cost comes in at about $7,900 each lot. This averages out the cost, borne by everyone. Cost was computed based on the existing system and client base. If they were only serving the northern part of the area, the total cost would be at about $6,600 per lot. Adding in the southern lots, the cost would be about $5,800 per lot due to more customers. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010 Page 4 of 8 Pages If they are only talking about the 2,000 lots in the north, it would be about $18,700 per lot. Including the other area, it would be about $9,000 per lot. Commissioner Baney asked about a monthly charge. Mr. Runner said it is a huge variable. If low-interest money is involved, it would be less. If it depends on private funding, the cost would be more. It would cost about $125 to $175 per month. The average cost in Sunriver now is about $63 per month. These costs seem to be reasonable based on what was found in other areas. Commissioner Luke asked about gravity flow. He was advised that non- pressurized would get a lot more infiltration. Commissioner Baney noted that they are going to bump up against the $125 per month issue. Laurie Craghead said that a local improvement district is allowed for a public facility, but she is not sure if a public-private partnership is possible. Commissioner Unger noted that there are bond payback and other considerations. Commissioner Baney said that even the $63 might be an issue for some. Commissioner Luke stated that there are maintenance costs on septic systems anyway, and when they do not work, it gets expensive. Also, more lots might be developed this way. Ms. Craghead said that the grant was to look at factoring the cost of a Goal 11 exception. Jim Front of W&H Pacific said that there has to be a health hazard declared by DEQ and nothing else feasible for the area. DEQ requirements are continually changing and are more stringent. It is easier to change treatment capabilities at a centralized facility than at individual sites. No one can control what people put down the drain. The centralized system can handle it or at least detect a problem. There is a practicability issue with sewer systems. Tom Anderson stated that once the study has been released, in terms of doing anything with is, he is not sure if the neighborhood would want to charge forward. They would have to go through the Goal 11 process. The DEQ is trying to find a solution, broadly stated for that area. Or in another route, the DEQ could declare a management area for the area and mandate a sewer system. In that case, the rules are different in terms of Goal 11. Sunriver is not necessarily advocating this. This is in response to a request from the DEQ as part of their relicensing efforts. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010 Page 5 of 8 Pages Mr. Runner said that Sunriver’s system is okay for now, but he is not sure how long it can be deferred. Terry Penhollow added that the DEQ also has to accept the feasibility study if the County does. It is always possible that the DEQ could reject. Mr. Anderson stated that it is a difficult process to determine which lots might be developed if a sewer were available. Every lot was factored in. The DEQ limits funding to $6 million a year, so it would have to be phased in over time using public subsidized funding. And it is unknown if undeveloped lot costs can be deferred. There are some complications. They may or may not have to pay the monthly fee. Ms. Craghead said that a decision needs to be made as to whether this is possible before ever trying to form a district. Then a decision on whether to phase it in or move forward needs to be made as well. Commissioner Luke stated that perhaps staff can say that the assumptions look reasonable, or not, and then pass it on to the DEQ. Mr. Anderson said that they worked with them through the process. It won’t take long. The recommendation will be to accept or not accept it. Commissioner Baney said that it may not work in this case. It is predicated on what the DEQ wants to do. What will be shared with them? Care needs to be taken about throwing out numbers. What strategy would be used to convey this information, allowing some flexibility? Commissioner Luke said that they could indicate there is a draft study, staff is reviewing it, and it will go to the DEQ. The cost depends on the type of system and how the costs can be handled. Hard costs will not be known until the facilities report is done. This goes to whether on onsite system is more or less expensive. Commissioner Baney said that if it is feasible, a pressurized system makes more sense. This needs to be kept vague for now. The question was whether it could be done. Based on the size and scope, she expected it to be more expensive than it seems to be. Laura Harvey asked if there would be a permit cost for a hookup. Mr. Anderson said that Oregon Water Wonderland converted to a sewer system, based on an agreement with the Sewer District and what they would do with the old and new systems. Typically, work like this requires a permit. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010 Page 6 of 8 Pages Ms. Harvey asked if Mr. Runner could give a presentation to others. Ms. Craghead said that this is a draft document, and the study has not yet been released. The numbers are not yet set. They are not ready to give the study to the County. 3. Discussion of Board Hearing on Appeal of Hearings Officer’s Denial of a Proposal for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility. Will Groves said there is a public hearing on this scheduled for Monday, February 8. COmissioner Luke said that Kathy Deggendorfer wanted more information, and he referred her to staff. Mr. Groves gave background information on the issue. The protection of resource lands are the foundation of land use. (He referred to an oversized map of the area.) At this time, he discussed the proposed tower location on Bradley Butte and the zoning in the area. These facilities are regulated as utilities necessary for public service. (He referred to the staff report at this time.) The applicant feels that the alternatives do not meet requirements. AT&T relied on towers built and owned by RCC Atlantic. However, the lease period is ending and will not be renewed. The Hearings Office found that one alternative was ruled out in error and two others were not ruled out, which was the basis for denial. Some locations were found to be not appropriate due to existing CCR’s. He anticpates this might be a debated point at the hearing as not all of the subdivisions have active CCR’s. State rules and Code do not protect view sheds of historic structures. Commissioner Baney asked about the decision points in the de novo hearing. Mr. Groves then explained them. The applicant has to analyze reasonable alternatives. If the public says that a certain place might work, the applicant will have to show that it can’t. The policy issue would be whether multiple towers are a good solution. The Board has to decide what is reasonable. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010 Page 7 of 8 Pages Ms. Craghead said she would look at case law. Based on Statute, the decision of the Board will not be given deference on appeal. This cannot be decided based on health reasons, and must be based on their business model under the Federal Telecommunications Act. Mr. Groves noted that it is somewhat of a guessing game. Court cases require the applicant to guess which are best. At one time, these applications were for spec towers. Ms. Craghead stated that they have to show the service they are going to provide. You can’t force them to co-locate or operate on the same frequencies. 4. Pre-meeting Planning for February 4 DEQ Public Involvement Session in La Pine. Regarding the joint meeting with the DEQ, Commissioners Luke and Baney and one Klamath Commissioner will be there, plus the public. Dick Pederson of the DEQ will be there. Commissioner Baney said her approach is to hear from the DEQ and the residents. She does not want to talk about where we have been as much as where we are heading. It’s not a County meeting. Mr. Anderson stated that as noted in Mr. Pederson’s letter, they support the science as being valid. But he also says there is time. One central point of the science is that there is not necessarily time. As more pollution enters the groundwater from the existing systems, the cost will go up. He does not want to raise animosity, but this is a fundamental point. Mr. Anderson asked who from the County might be on the committee. Commissioner Luke said it depends on the purpose of the committee, and it is up to the DEQ. Commissioner Baney said that they are finally trying to be somewhat responsive. Things need to keep moving forward. Six months between meetings is not that great. Nick Lelack noted that Ed Criss, the Planning Commissioner from that area, said that south County residents want to move forward but have run into resistance from some DEQ staff. He feels that many residents are frustrated with this as well. They want to know about potential health hazards, whether sewers are an option, and so on.