Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-04 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, AUGUST 4, 2010 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Blust, Road Department; Dave Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Tom Anderson, Peter Gutowsky, Cynthia Smidt, Peter Russell, Nick Lelack and George Read, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Planning Commissioner Merle Irvine; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and six other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of Grant Request – Deschutes Economic Alliance. Lawnae Hunter gave an overview of the work of the Deschutes Economic Alliance. She feels what is needed is the work of an expert in the field. Dave Lewis did a PowerPoint presentation at this time. (A copy of information on the consultant is attached for reference.) All groups have talents and strengths. Each one is charged with certain elements. She said that at the County level, the Board can think of it as a way to unite all aspects and emphasize the strengths. The world is not the same as it was years ago and has changed in many ways. There is a need to be united to have any political clout in Washington or at the State level. All of the efforts now being done are good, but it is not enough. The area has had a crisis going on for some time. There are middle management people leaving the community, and others who have jobs but are leaving because they don’t see opportunities for upward mobility. Information on what other entities that used this company have experienced was requested. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, August 4, 2010 Page 1 of 5 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, August 4, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Pages Ms. Hunter stated that part of this comes from outside ideas that are generated. She feels that this type of help is desperately needed here. Commissioner Luke would like to know what the cities are thinking and to what degree they are willing to participate. The County puts in $110,000 to EDCO each year. The cities are where the jobs are, and the cities need to do their part. Ms. Hunter said that the funding they are requesting is not much for this kind of work. This should not be a long process as the community is slipping away now. They hope to get their fundraising completed in August. This work will empower the agencies that participate. When you look at the problem globally, there may be a lot of things that are being overlooked, and expertise is needed to make sure everything is considered. 2. Continued Discussion of SDC’s for Single-family Residences within Destination Resorts. Tom Blust stated that there was a group that addressed this issue in the past, and most of those stakeholders got together again. The original intent was for a lower rate for residences within destination resorts, based on original calculations and the use. Commissioner Luke asked why a permanent home, owner-occupied, would be different within or outside of a destination resort. Mr. Blust said a Kittleston study in 2006 showed traffic counts and the total number of dwelling units and trips. It is an aggregate of what destination resorts per residence tend to generate, and that number is less than typical communities and neighborhoods. They are occupied less and may be occupied by retired people who make fewer trips. Commissioner Luke asked if there is a development for retirees or for those over age 55, are those developments then to pay less for SDC’s. It would be difficult to determine this overall. He asked if other jurisdictions make that kind of distinction. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, August 4, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Pages Mr. Blust said that the Kittleston study just looked at Deschutes County destination resorts. Commissioner Unger noted that typically you take the need for capital improvements and the number of trips to come up with SDC’s. You might waive one for a Habitat home or something similar, but you cannot increase the cost to others to offset this. He asked if the rate went up for others when the destination resort amount was established. Mr. Blust explained how this was figured per trip factor, using peak hour trips. Commissioner Baney said that the funding formula would show a different rate. No one appealed this decision at the time. Commissioner Unger said funds are needed to keep the roads up, and they should pay an equal amount. The roads will need work no matter what time of day someone use them. It is an investment in community. Commissioner Luke stated that for some reason he did not catch this difference at the time. It does not make sense to have a lower fee. It is too hard to differentiate the use. He could understand this for units that are clearly rentals. He cannot justify this in a single-family home scenario. Commissioner Unger noted that the system has to be built to a certain standard to work for everyone. It is hard to find transportation funding and it helps destination resorts to succeed if the roads are good. Commissioner Baney pointed out that the amount within the destination resorts is an average overall, considering the different types of housing. Mr. Blust said that there should be another look at the system development charge issue in the next couple of years, per the request of the stakeholders’ group. This will have to wait until the transportation system plan update is done. It was phased in to 2011, and will be indexed after that. It is at about 95% now. 3. Comprehensive Plan Update. Terri Payne said that the Planning Commission has been very thorough in its work. The members will see the entire package at the next Planning Commission meeting. They have asked for more time. The goals and policies have been reviewed and there are a couple of areas of concern. They have to make sure all the goals and policies fit together. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, August 4, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Pages Commissioner Luke reviewed alternative #1 and #2, and prefers the Planning Commission’s alternative #2. (A copy of staff’s memo is attached for reference.) He also pointed out that they have limited staff to address this kind of work right now. Mr. Lelack said that it will never be perfect. The best idea to him would be alternative #3, which allows for more time to deal with the issues. They’d be able to issue a 45-day notice by November 1. Commissioner Baney stated that the budget process will begin again, and the legislature will be back in session next year, so this will be a challenge. Option #1 misses this. She’d like this project completed before budget time. Dave Kanner said that the June 30 deadline for adoption of the comprehensive plan is self-imposed by the Board. Commissioner Baney said they could try to buy more time, but she’d like to see progress made sooner rather than later. 4. Historic Landmarks Commission Code Update. Peter Gutowsky stated that staff volunteered to finish this work, which will result in $3,000 of grant funding. Better formatting, more leeway for decision-makers, etc. were pursued. Every resident who owns a historic resource provided input, and the Landmarks Commission supports the update. The Planning Commission recommends adoption. This will be on the August 23 agenda, and no testimony is expected. The process for new designation has changed and requires the full support of the property owners. There are new guidelines to add a historic landmarks designation. Mr. Gutowsky said that if they get a tax benefit, they need to know the rules. Ms. Schmidt stated that the clarifications are fairly innocuous and have not generated a lot of interest. The Commissioners want to see the amendments as soon as possible.