Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-30 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, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad, Nick Lelack, Terri Payne; Peter Gutowsky and George Read, Community Development; Marty Wynne, Finance; members of the Planning Commission; representatives of NeighborImpact; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and a representative of KOHD TV; and about a dozen other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion on Housing Rehabilitation Loan Agreement with NeighborImpact for South County Septic Upgrades. Karen Orme, Corky Senegal and Laura Fritz, representing NeighborImpact, came before the group. Tom Anderson explained there have been several discussions about this issue over the past few months. There are two primary concepts. The County’s financial assistance fund would help homeowners comply with regulations regarding failing systems or upgrades required at the time of major home remodel or new construction. The County’s funding would primarily have to do with system failure. The NeighborImpact fund is a loan program with low interest, with payment deferred until the property changes hands. Commissioner Unger asked which systems would be required. Mr. Anderson said it would be the variable treatment system model, with a certain level of nitrogen reduction. The main concepts are using the County’s financial assistance funding pooled with NeighborImpact’s funds, under their loan program. They have had a successful program in place for a while. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 1 of 6 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Pages The more detailed concept is when someone may not qualify for a NeighborImpact low interest loan. This could be because the loan to value ratio is upside down or the property owner is behind on payments. The County program would basically guarantee that loan. (Mr. Anderson presented the concept paper in this regard.) Ms. Fritz gave an overview of how the organization might assist people in this situation. There are criteria in place. Concerning volume, two out of five applications were denied that potentially could have been approved through the County. Mr. Anderson said that NeighborImpact funds might be available for less risky items, such as general repairs and upgrades to the system. Commissioner Baney brought up how the contract could be defined. Woman from NeighborImpact said that the County would have to define the type of risk it is willing to take. If there are Code violations, those will have to be cleared up. Some have not paid their mortgage for a long time. Chair Baney asked if they could offer some guidelines. They indicated that they have met with the Finance Director and realize there is more to do to get this going. Commissioner Luke asked Marty Wynne and Dave Kanner if the County wants to entertain this level of risk. Mr. Kanner said that he does not think that the County is prepared to handle this on its own. Mr. Wynne said they need NeighborImpact’s expertise. Mr. Anderson stated that potentially the homeowner might do some of the work. The loan might be based on income level, interest rate, and so on. The loan is deferred, but typically do not go any longer than seven years. They do not have to make payments until the term expires or the property is sold. It was decided that they should focus the $60,000 on guaranteeing the riskier loans, and NeighborImpact will work with Mr. Wynne and Mr. Kanner to better define the process and its parameters. Chair Baney said that if they are to use Deschutes County funds in this way, and there is a 15% administration fee, why the County would not handle these directly. She was advised that those funds would not be used unless the loan goes bad. The County funds act as a guarantee. The Board concurred that this could be a great partnership. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Pages 2. Discussion of House Bill 2229 – “The Big Look”. Chair Baney left the meeting to attend a conference out of the area. Nick Lelack gave an overview of what he has learned thus far about this Bill. He said that Representative Garrett took this up, indicating that it was a starting point, and the task force was supposed to report back by February 1, 2009. Land use as it is being used today is to be analyzed inside and outside the UGB, and decisions made as to whether it is working. The Bill makes several changes to the law (staff report). The process allows counties to reevaluate the process to correct mapping and zoning issues, and to simplify the process. The solutions in the Bill are extraordinary. No resources were provided to help with this work, however. The key is the farm and forestland designation update. There could be a legislative review of these lands, to see if this is consistent. However, the law requires a look at all exception lands, such as MUA-10 and RR-10. Mr. Kanner asked if this change would be at the landowners’ request. Commissioner Luke said that a lot of things were designated EFU because they were running out of time. If something is designated open space instead of EFU, this may be appropriate. Mr. Lelack stated that there are a lot of factors to consider for this to take place. Land would need to meet the designation of farm or forest per State law, based on the type of soils. It may be zoned EFU, but the soils are not. (handout) If land is irrigated or 50% or more has the proper soil type, it stays farmland. (The group recessed at this time to attend, via videoconferencing, to participate in a State Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee hearing on destination resorts. A discussion of this issue will be addressed at a future meeting.) 3. Comprehensive Plan Update: Release and Review of First Public Draft. (This item was addressed prior to item #2.) Terri Payne gave an overview of the draft, based on input and studies, reports and other data. This plan has a lot of action items rather than just goals and policies. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet by any means. Some people have asked why this matters, and she has explained that land use impacts the quality of life. It is always a balancing act between property rights and regulation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Pages There will be 90 days of public input before a revision is done. Many meetings are scheduled. Chair Baney asked if this is standard procedure. Ms. Payne said this is the ideal, not necessarily the norm. They are trying very hard to get this out before the public. All information will also be on the CDD website. Peter Gutowsky stated that staff appreciates the Board’s support of this endeavor, which has become a priority and a big commitment. It is forward thinking, and he is confident that this framework is a great starting point. All of the work has been done in house, and reflects a collaboration between regulators, the public and other stakeholders. It is in a user-friendly format to allow the public to easily access it. Those who are interested will find it is simple to review and critique. Staff will provide a copy of the update to all of the local City Community Development directors, to school districts, parks districts and others. It will also be available at every local library branch. He said that this is different, and is not the typical legislative process. They are truly committed to getting feedback from all entities. It is the communities’ document, and when the process is done, it should be a good result. A person in the audience asked if there is any way to get the meetings on community television. Chair Baney said they would see if there is an avenue to do so. The County is trying to coordinate ways to get more people involved. This may include televising if at all possible. Commissioner Unger said that the Planning Commission meetings are also an important aspect. Ms. Payne stated that there is already a posting on when the Planning Commission meets and what their discussion topics will be. Mr. Gutowsky said that the south County public wanted things to move more slowly, based on input regarding the high groundwater pollution issue. There are several meetings scheduled there to obtain input on a variety of land use and environmental issues. Mr. Lelack said that the community discussions begin tomorrow night at the Planning Commission meeting. This is not quasi-judicial, but there are requirements that have to be met during this process. Mr. Kanner noted that the public input is not limited to the agenda items, but comments are welcome on any issue at any meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Pages 4. Other Items. The group attended, via videoconferencing, to participate in a State Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee hearing on destination resorts. Representatives of Wasco County, which does not have a destination resort, were to testify. Also to be addressed was countywide mapping of destination resorts and the application process. The question is how the process can be streamlined. After 25 years, the impacts of resorts are now known. Major concerns are traffic, the dangers of wildfire, water use, and other potential problems. Deschutes County is in the middle of evaluating its destination resort program, and knows a lot about what is working and not working. Al Johnson, a developer who has worked on a lot of projects on the Oregon coast, will also speak. Most of these were done through an exception process. The purpose of the panel is to get some ideas out on what is working and what is not. The Chair asked that just several people speak since time is limited. Commissioner Luke spoke at this time. He said he is not there to say that Deschutes County needs more resorts, but he wants to be sure that the process is fair. Nick Lelack then read his statement (a copy of which is attached). Mark Hash asked about Pronghorn and their promise to build overnight facilities as a condition of their permit, and whether they have defaulted on the bond. This could represent one of the problems they are trying to fix at the legislative level. Commissioner Luke stated that because Pronghorn was a new company, they actually put up the cash, about $7 million. This is a problem with others as well. The legislation has already made a change in that, along with case law. Mr. Lelack stated that there have been changes instituted already in this regard. Commissioner Luke indicated that Tetherow Crossing has provided a plan on the work to go on in that location. Some of this problem has been solved already. Mr. Hash said he hears that this could then be codified. Commissioner Luke indicated that this is something they are already doing. At this time, the video conference meeting went to the representatives of Wasco County.