The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFAC (Financial Assistance Committee ) CommentsAdditional Comments from FAC Committee Members From Robert Ray: I want to emphasize that this is only reflects my recommendations if the County retains control of the issue. Should the County rescind its powers back to the DEQ I would want to insure that solutions the DEQ comes up with would have the access to the solution fund for mitigating the future possible contamination with County oversight on expenditures. From Martha Bauman: I am inclined to say a lot will depend on what direction the county will take now, since LOCAL RULE was defeated. I feel that a lot of our suggestions will not be heeded regardless. #3. My own personal feeling is that the extra money should be used to protect our groundwater, as long as the money would be used to benefit us, the property owners, and not commercial, then using money for sewer feasibility studies in the right places seems reasonable. If someone uses the money for a feasibility study and they benefit from it, such as SUNRIVER, then SUNRIVER should reimburse all the funds that were used. SUNRiVER or NO ONE ELSE should benefit from monies that were meant to PROTECT OUR GROUNDWATER. #11. Proceeds from the sale of RED LOTS, county owned, where sewer service would be available all the PROCEEDS should accrue to the financial solution fund. When the county makes a final decision as to how they plan to proceed, the FAAC, should be able to change or add to the suggestions regarding how the Financial Solution Funds are to be distributed. From Pam Luettich — comments in italics: Recommendations: 1) Property owners with existing homes are the priority for financial assistance. Financial assistance funds should not be used to subsidize new construction. 2) Although all income levels should have access to financial assistance funds, assistance should be targeted to low income households. / agree to a degree, however there are many programs out there that specifically target lower income households. Given our current economic crisis and that the majority of families, though not technically low income, are just above the threshold this could create a severe financial burden on the majority of households. An equitable solution for distribution of all funds based upon the full financial picture of a case by case scenario should be warranted and would better assist the entire South Deschutes County. 3) Funds should be available for feasibility studies for sewers. a. The county should investigate cost sharing for the community requesting the feasibility study. That being said the County should also seek additional grants etc. that would support these ventures without touching the targeted funds for financial assistance. b. Specifically on the Sunriver sewer system expansion feasibility study, if any future major development (such as, but not limited to, destination resorts) should benefit from the study, then they should be made to reimburse the financial assistance fund equal to that benefit. . / agree, however I would take this one step further and stipulate that any sewer expansion for purposes other than residential be made to not only reimburse the fund but also would have to pay additional fees such as application fees or the like. These funds are for the residents and not the businesses. Additionally. Businesses fall under a different category for Nitrate Reduction etc. therefore have additional rights and responsibilities as mandated by the Federal Government — let's not overlook that. 4) Funds should be targeted to high nitrate areas, which typically are areas with older homes in higher density concentrations. . 1 personally would also like to see the County take on the responsibility to source homes with septic systems that have a high likelihood of failing, perhaps that of homes where systems were installed say 20+ years ago, those homes should have their septics tested for integrity and they should be the first to receive any allocated funds as they would be the major contributors to the supposed Nitrate issue. 5) Assurances or guarantees must be provided by the County that funds generated by the New Neighborhood in the City of La Pine will be dedicated to future actions tied to groundwater protection and property owner financial assistance. These guarantees must be written in such as way to bind all further County Staff/Commissioners and not just the current staff. 6) A comprehensive plan should be developed that accomplishes the following things related to use of funds. a. Identifies who will administer grants and loans (should not be the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC). This should be ran through an RFP process and a committee in place to assess and determine the best possible loan administrator. The County MUST look outside of our 4 walls (Central Oregon) for the best possible administrator. b. Funds should not be used to validate nitrate loading model predictions. Validation must occur but the County must come up with the funds for this through either additional grants or reallocation of existent County Funds. c. Provides for an oversight committee on the use of funds. d. How much of assistance should be grants versus loans. e. Would address the long term adequacy of funds. 7) Long-term, cost deferred loans (no payments) are a good use of funds. / would caution against this as that means a balloon payment scenario which can add up to much more than the original loan amount. In a balloon payment scenario you still compound interest monthly (or daily depending upon the loan guidelines) and since that interest is not paid monthly you end up with a huge balloon of interest + payment at the end of specified period of time. This can really create a scenario of individuals facing a huge payment, not having the money to pay and then losing everything. 8) Assistance associated with 'time of sale' upgrade requirements is not recommended. "Time of Sale" upgrades should only be implemented upon individuals who do not pass septic inspections at the time of sale. This is due diligence for all loans thus would be a normal process. Upgrades should only be imposed if issues are found to the integrity of the system. 9) Funds should not be used for groundwater protection education programs. Funds for programs such as these should be sought through grants etc. and/or reallocation of separate County Funds. 10) Purchase of Pollution Reduction Credits (PRCs) from property owners who have installed nitrogen reducing systems is recommended. However, property owners should have the same ability to sale a credit to the County for work they undertake. Let's not create an unfair scenario here. 11) Proceeds from the sale of high groundwater ("red") lots should accrue to the financial assistance fund. / still highly suspect "red lot" usage and sales. If you are seriously looking at the effect of development on the Community, Ground Water and Stream Health these should be protected lots — a riparian zone only. 12) Financial assistance funds should definitely not be used to pay county staff. Absolutely not. The County needs to pay staff through their own budgetary process. 13)The exploration of a System Development Charge (SDC) that would require new construction to contribute to the financial assistance fund. This would include expansion or construction of properties located on Destination Resorts in the study area. If determined to be viable and equitable the assessment should be enacted. A lot of details needs to be discussed further. While I agree in theory this could be derailed easily and easily altered into something else.