Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-06 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, MAY 6, 2009 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad, Barbara Rich, Cynthia Smidt and Todd Cleveland, Community Development Department; David Givans, Auditor; and four other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of La Pine Financial Assistance Advisory Committee Final Recommendations. Tom Anderson said that members of the committee were invited to attend but none is able to at this time. Following a meeting of the Board and committee last summer, staff continued to meet with the committee to clarify some points and add to the discussion. There were meetings held in November and December. A final list of recommendations was the goal. Some recommendations were related to financial aspects, while others were not. The discussion points were detailed after the meetings. No further meetings were held pending the election in March. A comprehensive list related to financial assistance on which there seems to be consensus was developed. He said he hopes to convey a summary of what the committee felt was important. There are some additional questions and logistical issues to address as well. At this time, he presented information and recommendations from the committee. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 1 of 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Anderson said that the committee did not want destination resorts to benefit from a sewer district; that they should pay like for like. Dave Kanner asked how this would be quantified. Mr. Anderson said that new customers already have to pay to hook into a system. Mr. Kanner suggested that perhaps they are thinking that a new area would want to hook into an existing system and not have to go through the feasibility process. Mr. Anderson stated that it would be difficult to do this; that any new development, especially a destination resort, would have to do its own feasibility study. A request for a voluntary contribution towards the fund could be requested of any new development, but he believes it cannot be automatically required. In regard to the Sunriver sewer system extension, there was indication that the neighborhoods located nearby were very interested in the feasibility study. Laurie Craghead clarified that it could be that portions of a study may be useable for a new study. This type of information is public record, and there is no way to force people to pay another entity back for work that was already done. Commissioner Unger asked about integrity testing existing systems. It was pointed out that testing could not be required unless there is an obvious failure. These could only be done upon request. Todd Cleveland said it is irrelevant whether a system is failing; the nitrates will still get into the soil. A failing system can be a health problem because of pathogens, but that has little to do with nitrates. The old steel tanks are being replaced at every opportunity in any case. In regard to a guarantee that funds generated by the new neighborhood be dedicated towards groundwater protection, Mr. Anderson said that the Board cannot obligate future Boards in this manner; there is legislation detailing how this funding can be used. Ms. Craghead stated that it could be used for groundwater protection but the law might not be that restrictive. Commissioner Luke said that a plan could be written that would take an actual vote to change. A comprehensive plan was brought up at several meetings regarding how funds should be used. Several recommendations were made. Funding will be needed to study model predictions, so if it does not come from the available funds, this will have to be budgeted over time from other sources. The amount would be about $75,000. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Baney asked how the requested oversight committee would monitor funds. It could be much like the current advisory committee’s function. There was no clear-cut recommendation on how much of the funding should be for grants and how much should be for loans. Consensus was that the deferred loan program would be desirable in some cases. This type of program is one that NeighborImpact currently offers; however, there are currently some issues with the program due to the loss in property values, when an owner may have too much income to qualify. Mr. Anderson said that some grants might be available through the Clean Groundwater Act for these types of situations. Laurie Craghead stated that the sale of foreclosed properties results in the County’s share being about 20% maximum, and it might be used for a variety of things. It could be used to support the functions of Property Management to reduce the amount of general funds going to that department. In regard to using funds to pay for staff, the committee does not want this to happen. They want this to be funded in a different way. However, funding for other things, such as public safety, would take precedence over funding the work of a committee, through decisions made during the budget process. System Development Charges will not work since public infrastructure is required and the money cannot be spent on private property. Other types of fees for new construction may be investigated. Mr. Kanner pointed out that there is already an ordinance in place that requires an additional fee for new construction, related to sewage disposal. Much of this might change if the Department of Environmental Quality takes control of the issue and mandates certain things be done. At that point, the County will have little control over many of the concerns listed. Commissioner Baney said that she had hoped that the committee would be more definitive when it comes to how much should be spent for certain things, rather than leaving much of this undefined. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 4 of 6 2. Text Amendment to Chapter 18.16 of Title 18, the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Paul Blikstad said there was no comment on the current proposed wording for EFU zoning. This would primarily put the County into compliance to laws adopted over the past few sessions. Under non-farm dwellings, based on State law passed in 1993, new parcels could not be created after that time without going through another process. However, if a parcel is large enough and is irrigated, parcels have been created in Deschutes County in the past. The other involves large totally dry acreage. Under the section dealing with yards, side yard setbacks are the primary issue. Mr. Blikstad feels that if it specifies a farm might be affected, that the property be specially assessed as such to be considered a farm. Mr. Blikstad said that it is very rare that someone can qualify under farm income criteria, since it is so high relative to what most people can make through farming. Therefore, in most cases in Central Oregon a home cannot be placed on a property as a farm dwelling. Discussion then occurred over what might be considered high value farmland or high value crops in the area. 3. Discussion of Central Oregon Irrigation District Appeal Hearing. Cynthia Smidt said there is a hearing next week on this appeal, which involves a lot of record verification. The issue is whether the establishment of the road created two different parcels. COIC feels that it did, but staff does not. Much depends on when the road went through. The Lovinger case addressed this type of issue. The road was not deeded or conveyed for highway use. The property was under public ownership at the time and there was likely no need seen for a deed or other conveyance. Commissioner Baney pointed out that the road made a large part of the property unusable. Commissioner Luke noted that in years past, often there were no deeds and there was little concern about the consequences. Land often goes in and out of public ownership. Ms. Smidt said that the Hearings Officer did consider changes in stewardship within State agencies. She stated that the lot does not meet minimum lot size at this time in order to be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Ms. Craghead said that there was no opposition to the COIC application except from the County. It is unlikely that there are very many lots in a similar situation along major highways. However, a lot of parcels are divided by roads. Ms. Craghead stated that the biggest concern is that the State had ownership at the time the road was established, and did not see the need to have deeds created. Commissioner Baney asked why this is an issue since the lot is not large enough to develop. Ms. Craghead said the zoning does not affect the legal status. Commissioner Unger stated that if it were allowed to be a legal lot, does it depend on the desired use. For instance, they would want to use it for a small hydro project, which benefits the public interest. It would take a zone change to be able to put a residence on it. Commissioner Luke said that if no one participates in the hearing, he or she does not have the right to appeal a decision. He feels that at the time, the owner chose to create two lots by the division created by the highway. This is a very unique situation involving a public use and a public benefit. 4. Other Items. Mr. Kanner stated that in March, John Thomas of La Pine asked the Board to make a determination on the use of his property. Mr. Kanner worked with staff to let him know his options. There are no quick options in this case. The easiest way would be to have his land designated commercial within the City of La Pine through its comprehensive plan. In the meantime, Code enforcement could be held in abeyance. Mr. Anderson agreed, but there is an issue with use of the property during that time. The owner had made improvements to the building after he purchased it, without benefit of permits. This could constitute a health or safety risk. Working to designate the property commercial is the fastest way to help Mr. Thomas’ with his concerns. _______________________________ Mr. Kanner said that in regard to House Bill 2228 (the Metolius basin), it would not be a violation for the Board to advocate for or against it, but such advocacy could set up an issue for an appeal. Commissioner Baney said she supports what they are trying to accomplish, which is low impact, productive ownership. Mr. Kanner stated that it needs to be clear that any review that the Board does will be fair and unbiased during the land use process.