Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-23 Work Session MinutesDeschutes 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, JANUARY 23, 2008 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke and Tammy (Baney) Melton; Commissioner Michael M Daly was out of the office. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property and Facilities; Erik Kanner, Deputy County Administrator; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Jeanine Faria and Teri Maerki, Finance; David Inbody, Assistant to the County Administrator; Sheriff Larry Blanton; Timm Schimke and Chad Centola, Solid Waste; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Update /Discussion regarding Daycare Center Contract. Susan Ross asked that this be postponed until all three Commissioners are present. 2. Update on La Pine Affordable Housing Project. Teresa Rozic updated the Board on this project. She said that the bids are due on January 31. The State's process is being followed. In regard to the roads, it is not yet sure where the property would front. She indicated that an application is already being considered, but there cannot be two outstanding applications. There are a couple potential sources for grants. Catherine Morrow said that the road has been approved on the quadrant plan. Access and frontage need to be considered. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Page 1 of 8 Pages Chair Luke asked if the road should be done now. Mr. Kanner stated that the cost would only go up over time. Commissioner Luke wants the bids to come in before making this change. Commissioner Melton observed that the cost to bidders might change if the property connects in ay way with their lots. Ms. Morrow stated that a partition requires surveying and the application process could be a couple of months, unless the La Pine City Council decides to hold a hearing, or if the selection or application process is challenged and requires a public hearing. A member of the audience asked if senior citizen housing is to be included. Chair Luke stated that it is not mentioned in the State documents. Commissioner Melton goes through the proposals and decides what to fund; a study is being conducted at this point, and would include the need for senior housing. Chair Luke added that they hesitate to delegate a certain amount to a specific group, as there are other groups that need the housing. A mix of users is more likely. 3. Discussion /Update on South County Groundwater Issues. Dave Kanner stated that the questions the County wants to ask the DLCD and DEQ have been drafted for the Board to review (a copy of which is attached). He asked if there are any additions as well. Chair Luke would like an overview from DEQ about the meaning of their recent letter. Mr Kanner stated that DEQ would probably hesitate to go through a public process since they feel there is a public health hazard. Some of the questions are, is the study valid; and do citizens need to initiate the creation of a sewer district. Citizens need to be informed on how to create a sewer district. There are questions about who makes a finding whether a sewer district can be installed; and whether there is a practicable alternative. Laurie Craghead stated that the County comprehensive plan would have to occur as well. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Page 2 of 8 Pages The County cannot make a finding first until the DEQ does. Tom Anderson said that this is new ground fro the State and County and much has to be addressed logistically. Cooperation will be imperative; at this point, it may be too soon to get down to the nuts and bolts. A test case would be the best way to work through this. All three agencies need to commit to cooperation and getting through the process. Question #7 is key. In regard to #8, the County does not have expertise on staff to operate a sewer district. Ms. Craghead said that it depends on how the district is formed and who will be the governing body. Commissioner Melton stated there appear to be third party options for operation. Mr. Kanner said that a clear definition of "no practicable alternative" is needed, and whether it is still practicable if it turns out to be very expensive. Also, what if citizens want a sewer but a septic upgrade is an alternative that turns out to be expensive. It seems that cost can to be a factor in the determination if an alternative is viable. The other question is what happens if someone within the area does not want to be included in the sewer district. Ms. Craghead stated that it could become an election issue, and only the owners who are also residents could vote. Ms. Morrow said that boundaries can be determined by a variety of ways, but what needs to be known is what can be included. Mr Kanner said that DEQ should be asked if an existing sewer district could be expanded. Commissioner Luke stated that there are some areas that are adjacent to the existing urban sewer district as well. Mr. Anderson stated that the district has already asked about expansion. Mr. Kanner stated that #11 and #13 regarding a local rule is also key, and what if the County does not adopt the rule. Commissioner Melton said that DEQ wants the County to address the red lots at the same time. The local rule as now drafted does not include the red lots. Mr. Anderson said the meeting is not a hearing on any Code provisions. There are some items such as the red lot issue that will likely change over time. The focus of the upcoming meeting is to gain some resolution on the science and getting an idea of how and when to allow sewering. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Page 3 of 8 Pages Commissioner Melton stated that the County should be willing to work on language to address the red lot issue. Chair Luke stated that the red lots are not all the same. Some are small lots and some are often flooded and may not be conducive to ever being built upon. Sewering may help some of them, but some are wetlands. Mr. Anderson said that DEQ will be asked whether they support a local rule and under what conditions. Chair Luke added that this question should be asked of both DEQ and DLCD. Commissioner Melton asked why the County would not just ask DEQ to handle this whole issue; perhaps they are the best agency to handle this, not the County. Chair Luke said that if DEQ were in charge of the process, there would not be much consideration of public involvement. The decision would be based on the science and not the people who are affected. Commissioner Melton asked if this is something that is outside of what the County should be doing. Chair Luke stated that this is DEQ's responsibility and the County is under contract with the State. If the County chooses not to do one of these functions, the State will do it. Commissioner Melton said that CDD is experiencing a loss of revenue and may not have the capacity to handle this kind of project. There will be a lot of work required to go through this process. Mr. Kanner said the financial advisory committee will have to decide how much money, if any, should be set aside for this purpose. The creation of a sewer district requires time and money. It is a land use process and there is a fine line as to how involved the County can be. Ms. Craghead added that there are laws regulating how much can be charged and the level of County involvement. Ms. Morrow said there is a land use process to amend the comprehensive plan, and there are fees involved. Commissioner Melton asked if this change can be done on a larger scale; Ms. Morrow said that the boundaries would have to be specifically defined. The State Rule states that it has to be as small an area as possible to prevent sprawl. Mr. Anderson said that people will want to know if it is more or less expensive to develop a sewer system rather than upgrade septic systems. Chair Luke stated that the State would need to help the County establish criteria. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Page 4 of 8 Pages The plan is to videotape the meeting, and the cable companies can then broadcast it. If someone does not have access to cable, duplicates can be made for individuals who request them. Commissioner Melton said that the County is a reviewing agency but the criteria should perhaps be DEQ's responsibility. Ms. Craghead said that State law requires the County to handle the formation of sewer districts. The sewer system installation requires permits from the DEQ. A citizen asked if La Pine establishes an urban growth boundary, how this would fit in. They are already looking at expanding the current sewer system. He has questions on whether the problem is regional or in smaller areas. He still feels that there are questions about the science being valid and whether a problem even exists on a large scale. Ms. Morrow said that the City would have to adopt a comprehensive plan within three years. No presumptions can be made at this point as to how big the urban growth boundary might be and whether the sewer district will expand. Chair Luke said that Bend and Redmond were challenged regarding whether the areas they wanted to include was too large for the need they could demonstrate. A citizen asked if this is a land issue or a health issue. Mr. Kanner replied that the DEQ is on record as this being a public health issue, although they used the land use laws to make this determination. Mr. Inbody said that a facilitator has been identified but some specific parameters need to be developed as to what is to be discussed. Chair Luke indicated that the Board cannot narrow the scope; it is up to the group. Mr. Inbody stated that the group needs to know the exact charge of the work they are to undertake and what the expectations of the Board are. Commissioner Melton said that she hopes it will be easier to determine this after the meeting with DEQ and DLCD. 4. Other Items. Susan Ross presented information on the Jamison Building property purchase in regard to how the debt service would be handled. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Page 5 of 8 Pages Sheriff Blanton stated that it is good for the County to own this last property that is adjacent to the existing public safety complex. Some of the land may be used for jail expansion in the distant future. Oregon State Police will stay in the existing building until the new facility is constructed. Debt service after the initial three years (which would be covered by rent from the State) would be covered by the Sheriff's Office. Dave Kanner indicated that there has always been good support for the County to own this property. The Commissioners merely wanted confirmation on how the debt service would be handled. Mr. Kanner stated that cash is available in the PERS reserve fund for short -term use to close the sale; the funds would be returned at the time a bond was secured. The bond would also cover other projects so that there would be only one issuance fee. The PERS rate will remain the same at least into mid -2009 and there is approximately $8.5 million in that fund at this time. He feels this would be the most appropriate place from which these funds would come. Commissioner Melton is concerned about the perception of the County borrowing from retirement funds. She also is hesitant to utilize the health appropriations fund. Ms. Faria stated that there are not that many funds that have adequate appropriations on the books, and that the funds in question are not related but only have similar names. Ms. Ross stated that this has been advertised and no one has called with concerns about the PERS reserve fund. Ms. Ross stated that escrow is supposed to close by the end of the month. Commissioners Melton and Luke stated that they are okay with legal review of these documents. Ms. Ross and Ms. Maerki left the meeting at this point. After they returned, Ms. Ross stated that the supplemental budget resolution has been revised, and the transfer of appropriations has been changed. Chair Luke opened the public hearing at this point. Being no testimony offered, he closed the hearing. New Resolutions are being presented that only change the funds involved. MELTON: Move adoption of the supplemental budget through Resolution 2008 -005. LUKE: Second. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Page 6 of 8 Pages VOTE: MELTON: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. MELTON: Move approval of Resolution No. 2008 -013. LUKE: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. MELTON: Move approval of Resolution No. 2008 -008. LUKE: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. MELTON: Move authorization of checks for closing, subject to Legal review of the escrow closing documents. LUKE: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 5. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Pending or Threatened Litigation. The Board went into executive session at 3:35 p.m. Executive session adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Timm Schimke gave a brief overview regarding Solid Waste projects and how the new Solid Waste facility is working out. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Page 7 of 8 Pages DATED this 23rd Day of January 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dennis R. Luke, Chai Tammy (Baney) Melton, Vice Chair Mic ael . Daly, C • missioner Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Page 8 of 8 Pages 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 WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2008 1. Update/Discussion regarding Daycare Center Contract — Susan Ross 2. Update on La Pine Affordable Housing Project — Susan Ross 3. Discussion/Update on South County Groundwater 4. Other Items 5. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Pending or Threatened Litigation — Mark Pilliod PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, limes and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388 -6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7 -1 -1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Ct., 41-t. na 6A-6974d • doerce-s JO( . [AAA C 2 t , t i z 6.2 -6, cy7L0 '::,---- .1 - ,_.-<.c p,./v, 40,3 -rr-o--P r_tyz_tc_ 6 btl4a1 --11-6-1-- Proposed agenda for 1/30/08 work session with DEQ/DLCD: 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Questions from BoC for DEQ and DLCD 3. Discussion of next steps: - Finalize local rule and publish for review? - Establish public hearing dates? 1. How can DEQ issue this determination of public health hazard without first going through a public process? 2. Now that the USGS study has been published, does DEQ see any problems or have any concerns with the published version compared to the draft version you reviewed in June, 2007? 3. DEQ has determined that a public health hazard exists in south County pursuant to DLCD administrative rules. Can you explain what the determination means? 4. Who will initiate the creation of sewer districts or the expansion of existing sewer districts? 5. Can you explain how citizens would initiate the process of installing a sewer system? 6. What happens in an area where a determination is made that there is no practicable alternative to sewer, but property owners in that area can't or won't form or expand a sewer district? 7. For DLCD: How can a sewer district be formed without a land use finding that an area can be served by sewer? 8. Will the County have to operate sewer districts? 9. For DLCD: Can you please explain the definition of the term "no practicable alternative ?" 10. Does DEQ have the ability to allow an existing sewer district to expand into an area where, a determination is made that there is no practicable alternative to sewer? 11. Does DEQ support the county in adopting a local rule to address public health issues in areas that can be practicably served by onsite systems? 12. We have been rewriting the draft local rule to reflect input from the public and other stakeholders. Will DEQ be prepared to offer specific comments on the local rule language as part of the public comment period on this proposal? 13. What would DEQ do if Deschutes County simply declined to adopt a local rule given that DEQ has already stated that "doing nothing is not an option ?"