Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-10 - Planning Commission Minutesn Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 APRIL 22, 2010 - 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Chris Brown. Members present were Vice Chair Ed Criss, Merle Irvine, Keith Cyrus, Todd Turner and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Approval of January 28 minutes, with revisions as emailed to the Commissioners, and February 25, 2010 minutes. Commissioner Irvine abstained from voting on the January 28 minutes due to absence. The February 25 minutes will include an indication that Commissioner Cyrus arrived after the items/discussion about the destination resorts and right before Item V on the agenda. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pam Hardy, a land use attorney, introduced herself on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon and said she was looking forward to working with the Commissioners. She has also worked for Central Oregon LandWatch and handled private cases throughout the state. Sunni Rounds, a resident of La Pine, testified regarding the Comprehensive Plan and submitted her comments in written form. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION: Review of Revised Sections — Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner. Terri said we are still receiving comments and that when we held community meetings, water issues came up during each discussion. The public indicated overwhelmingly that water was an important issue in this part of the State. We saw three key pieces: adequate availability for all users, which includes conservation measures; ground and surface water quality, not only for drinking but good river and stream water; and the cumulative impacts of development. The matrix results also show that these are key parts of the Plan. Quality Services Performed with Pride Chair Brown and Commissioner Irvine spoke about the timetable. Nick Lelack said we would like to try and get the community plans adopted before the Comprehensive Plan. He distributed a revised timetable to the Commissioners. Staff has to prepare a 45 -day notice for DLCD before the first public hearing. Our goal is to have most of the first complete draft done by August 26, since we will need to get the 45 -day notice out soon afterward. a) 2.2 Agricultural Lands Commissioner Klyce said he had thought a lot about dealing with agriculture, and we have received an extensive amount of public testimony indicating that agriculture in the County doesn't work. He has been trying to figure out what we can do to change that with the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke about the statement that agricultural lands need to be retained and felt that the County needs to encourage a viable agricultural industry, which goes beyond just having land available for agriculture. We have heard from members of the public with innovative ideas such as agritourism and also stating that large-scale agricultural activities in the County just do not work — the growing season is too short. He would like to figure out a way for the County, in the Comp Plan, to encourage flexibility which would do more for agricultural lands. Chair Brown clarified that when the State refers to income, it means revenue less expenses, not just revenue. Some folks are willing to lose some money to have a small farm and enjoy its qualities. Commissioner Klyce said there is a lot of land in the County being used as hobby farms, which is a lifestyle choice. He felt that the agricultural deferment supports a lifestyle for those who don't really need it, and it takes revenue away from the County. He doesn't think it's good enough just to say "agricultural lands need to be retained." Chair Brown asked if this meant that Goal 1 and Goal 2 should be reclassified into one. Commissioner Klyce indicated he would like to come up with a new key issue instead of "agricultural lands need to be retained." Maybe a statement could indicate something like the County adopting policies to encourage flexibility. We should come up with new ways to generate positive income on agricultural lands. He would like to stop the trend of too much ag land being taken up for residential use. The only thing that makes sense is to come up with viable agricultural policies that generate income. He would like to strike this issue right off the top and draft different language. Vice Chair Criss asked Nick if this had been discussed at a conference regarding HB2229. Nick said mostly they had talked about process and how to implement the bill. Dave Hunnicutt and Commissioner Unger will meet with Richard Whitman to indicate the County's interest in moving forward with H132229; it will take 6-8 months to develop rules for its implementation. Commissioner Irvine said it seems that if we want to expand the key issue, we need to have a statement that leads to goals and policies. We could include a statement regarding the reality of agriculture in the County being a money loser. Chair Brown said he is reluctant to refer to specific numbers such as dollars lost per acre, since every month a new report with a new set of numbers is issued. Commissioner Irvine said maybe we could include something more general. Nick suggested "accurately designated agricultural lands need to be retained." Commissioner Klyce said that was true, especially since there is EFU land that should not have the designation; but he would like to add something about being more flexible. Chair Brown mentioned Goal 3 and referring back to reclassification studies and revising this. Commissioner Klyce felt that language about agricultural lands needing to be retained would be a restatement of the last Plan, where the focus was on lands rather than agriculture. 2 Chair Brown asked Terri about required language. Terri said that Nick's suggestion would be appropriate — we are required to maintain State -defined agricultural land. We cannot do anything about what we have until we go through another report and findings to change the State definition. Nick's language about "accurately designated agricultural land" would be a good statement to use. Commissioner Cyrus suggested adding the word "protected." Commissioner Klyce said he would prefer to focus on the industry rather than the land. Nick suggested that perhaps the second key issue should refer to "agricultural landowners and farmers," since landowners may not be farmers. Commissioner Klyce said he would like to encourage people to pursue agriculture that is not commodity -based (meaning someone who only grows wheat, corn, and other crops which are not viable in this County due to the short growing season and competition from other farmers). From what he understood from past testimony, we need to change the face of agriculture in Deschutes County, maybe to specialty crops, and find new ways to define agriculture such as agritourism. He would like to see us encourage people. There are two entities outside Terrebonne that function the same as wedding event venues, and he does not see anything wrong with using EFU land for wedding events. He would like to see the County be more flexible in interpreting State law and test whether something will fly at the state level. Chair Brown asked if there is a hierarchy with these statements — key issues, goals and policies. Do we need to address this in key issues? Nick said we may not even need to keep them — it is the Commissioners' choice. Chair Brown asked if we should move the key issues to the side for the moment and make sure they are addressed in goals and policies. Commissioner Klyce said he is after a totally different way to look at this — focusing on practices rather than retaining lands only. Should there be a separate zone for hobby farms? Terri indicated our hands are somewhat tied, and we have tried to include language saying we support farming by reviewing guidelines, we agree there are issues to look at, and we are open to different language. Chair Brown said we had discussed dropping "economically viable," and talked about adding language from the building definition of agricultural buildings. Terri said that language was added in Policy 2.2.6. Commissioner Cyrus mentioned that historically the County's development was encouraged by the railroads. Water was accessible — three ditches in his area parallel Peterson Ridge and have now been combined for $40 million. Federal funds helped to develop projects like the North Unit. Some areas were set aside for returning G.I's. Power was inexpensive. Idaho developed with big irrigation projects. All of these areas developed around us with better climate and soils. We are trying to retain something that has outlived its use in today's market. Much of the available produce today is grown out of the country where labor is cheap. Embargos on crops like wheat affect what we get paid. Vice Chair Criss brought up the problem with misclassification of soils, and Nick said the soils in Eastern Oregon are defined by the State and most are classified as 6, 7, and 8. The better way to get around that is HB2229 and changing the definition. In the Valley, it is 1-4. Commissioner Cyrus spoke about the difficulties of small farmers. Chair Brown said he was trying to get away from the term "agricultural lands," and would rather talk about farmers. Another potential phrase would be "rural property owners," and he would like to avoid the use of the terms "irrigated land," and "EFU." Would we be better off referring to the industry and owners? Commissioner Klyce said the key issue paragraph sets the tone for the rest of the section, so it is important to make a philosophical statement. Commodity agriculture is no longer viable in the County. 3 Emphasis should be on agritourism, farmlands, etc. Chair Brown asked if we could use the word "revenue." Nick agreed the first issue sets the tone and perhaps we should refer to accurately designated agricultural lands - agricultural landowners and farmers need flexibility. Nick said that one thing he hears from planning directors in the valley is that the number of farms is decreasing, but the areas for agricultural use are increasing. They are trying to figure out how to keep local farms successful. Commissioner Turner felt it is important to retain agricultural lands. Perhaps some wording could be changed, but we do talk about flexibility and regional issues later on. Commissioner Klyce said he would like to see a change in the approach. Right now, we are trying to promote agriculture by making it impossible to do anything else on the land, where perhaps we should focus on the industry and preservation of the land will follow. Commissioner Turner said we are talking about giving farmers flexibility, and this can be worked out in the Plan. Commissioner Klyce said it sets the tone. Commissioner Turner said he and Commissioner Klyce would be on two sides of the issue regarding weddings, for example - what is economically viable? Chair Brown said there is Goal 2 with its policies and Goal 3 with its policies, and we are trying to say that the person who owns agricultural ground needs flexibility to generate revenue. Commissioner Turner said he also understood expenses against revenue, how those are used in agricultural practice and that they are very important to whether profits are shown. He is glad to have Chair Brown on this Commission with his accounting experience. Chair Brown asked if we could see suggested language changes before the next meeting. Terri said she will look into required language. We do have to use "EFU zoning" to protect farm zones. Chair Brown said that in one place we indicate "protect agricultural lands through EFU zoning," but is there an easier way to say this that the State will accept? Terri replied that perhaps we could say "...retain agriculture through EFU zoning." Chair Brown said he has a problem with EFU, which really does not apply in a lot of cases in the County. Commissioner Cyrus wondered if the term "EFU" originated when land values were escalating and the Farm Bureau was active in developing a system to apply and qualify for EFU designation based on rental lease rates, tied into the correlation of what the real value was - and then when land use planning came along, all those lands got lumped into EFU, whether they qualified or not. People did not have to come in and prove their status. Terri added that there are 6-7 agricultural subzones now. Commissioner Turner asked if we have had communication with the DLCD similar to that during Redmond's UGB process, so flags can be identified early on and problems with the 45 -day notice avoided? Terri said we have done a few things and gotten informal feedback, but the DLCD pretty much sticks to the line of not wanting to review anything until there is a formal proposal. Chair Brown asked Nick if there was a way to run some sections by Salem. Nick indicated that they were very hesitant to review a section in progress, but we can ask some questions. Commissioner Cyrus asked about subzone amendments that were done in 1992. We have a task of continuing on with something that has changed a lot. The adequate legal findings bother him — Nick said we can look at the language. HB2229 may result in a different process. Commissioner Cyrus felt that a professor from Oregon State and politicians had more input than the farmers. Chair Brown said in 2.2.9, we talk about diversification of the agricultural enterprise and the alternative uses being complementary. He would like to give every opportunity to landowners, but we need to be talking about something that fits. He gave an example of 4 wind towers next to laying hens. We need to protect neighborhood farming activities. Terri said this could be added. Commissioner Klyce asked about the purpose of 2.2.4. Commissioner Cyrus said we are trying to put more water back into streams but have policies that encourage irrigation and flood control. Nick said that the Lane County plan was a starting point. Commissioner Klyce asked about the phrase "minimum environmental degradation," and whether someone would have to prove this. Chair Brown said the priority would be to minimize. Commissioner Turner said he has always been bothered by the "use it or lose it" approach to our irrigation — there is no incentive to conserve water resources. .Commissioner Cyrus mentioned mitigation and irrigation districts. In his area, water must be conserved. Commissioner Turner said he is on the Central Oregon Irrigation District; they could be putting water onto fields, but there is no reason to. Commissioner Irvine said he sees people watering lawns 24 hours a day to keep their water rights. Commissioner Cyrus said water rights are always under attack. He does not feel we need to keep 2.2.4 but will probably need mitigation to get water back into the ground — the canals are drying up with piping. There will be problems down the road as domestic wells go dry. Reservoirs needing recharging may fit right in with this language. Commissioner Cyrus felt we could delete references to "environmental degradation" because there are already so many hoops to jump through. Nick suggested we say "encourage water projects that benefit agricultural use," and the Commissioners agreed. Nick also said that in 2.2.9, under "Other Uses," one issue that was not contemplated until recently was guest ranches. A work group will consider this. It is in the vein of smaller uses, and Chair Brown mentioned smaller destination resorts. Commissioner Klyce suggested cutting it off at "alternative uses," rather than having a specific list. Nick said we could support a policy of agritourism and define it — this is getting a lot of attention at the state level. Commissioner Turner said he could see situations where it would be appropriate and some where it would be problematic. Commissioner Klyce, Chair Brown and Terri discussed language in 2.2.14 concerning the Big Look. Commissioner Turner asked if this meant that, as a County, we support everything in the Big Look. Perhaps we do not want to be that specific. Nick asked if we should craft a policy to review the Big Look and determine areas to be considered. Commissioner Klyce asked about coordinating with BLM regarding use of vehicles on private property. Nick mentioned meeting with the Nashes, who have cattle on their property and BLM land on both sides. The cattle have been cut off from roaming on the land. Nick suggested language indicating "coordination with governmental agencies." Commissioner Klyce wondered if there is a polite way to ask the feds to keep recreational vehicles off private property. Vice Chair Criss said there are huge areas that cannot be patrolled. There should be a buffer zone so that farmers do not wind up with sage grouse driven onto their properties. Chair Brown said in 2.2.13, "exploring ideas" was too big. In 2.2.12, regarding housing, "small size" is not appropriate language. Nick and Terri discussed small farms meeting the income test. Chair Brown asked how soon we will see the next revisions, and Terri said they should be available in time for the next meeting. 5 b) 2.3 Forest Lands Chair Brown asked about 2.3.5 and the Skyline Forest language, which was mandated by the State. Terri said we had a lot of public comment. We know the land trust is trying to pull the money together. Commissioner Klyce questioned the County having to buy Skyline Forest if the deal falls through. Chair Brown asked about 2.3.9 and whether it allows us to apply for grants. Terri said yes. Commissioner Turner asked about 2.3.5 and whether we had received any input from Fidelity about Skyline Forest. Nick said he speaks frequently with Linda Swearingen. They are watching and trying to figure out how to make HB2228 work. Commissioner Turner said he is very supportive of Skyline Forest — there is someone who owns a lot of F1 land, and we are writing a statement that says it has to be preserved? Terri said it will be logged, and maybe saying "preserved intact as much as possible" would be better. Chair Brown said he would like an explanation of 2.3.10 and the added comments. Terri said that federal lands are not under our jurisdiction. Chair Brown said that when he first joined the Planning Commission, there was an issue about notifying landowners about restrictions on their property. He knows it is up to the landowner, but if someone exchanges a parcel they tend to have a preconception about the parcel. He wants to be sure people can learn about restrictions on their properties before their purchases. Commissioner Klyce asked about 2.3.10 and dropping the phrase "mitigate." He asked about F1 zoning and whether single family residences can be built. Terri said someone can build in F2, but there are very defined acreage minimums and other criteria for F1 lands. Commissioner Klyce asked about 2.3.2. Terri said this came out of our current Comprehensive Plan and it was used to differentiate between F1 and F2. Terri said there are single family houses next to F1 properties, and a hearings officer was recently working on the definition. Commissioner Klyce said that, to him, F1 meant land set aside for commercial forestry practices, not residential. Terri said she would look it up, but she understands it is mostly this way. Nick said that F1 is equivalent to EFU. Commissioner Klyce thought that if a defining characteristic is managing for commercial production, we could use the more restrictive "sole" term. Chair Brown said he had heard that the forest can only be protected by having a manager onsite. They may need a small residence on the property for the manager. Nick said a perfect example is Skyline Forest. Commissioner Cyrus and Peter Gutowsky discussed the Federal Resource Management Plan. c) 2.4 Goal 5 Introduction Terri indicated we are required to update this, although we are not doing Periodic Review IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION: Review New Sections - Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner. a) 2.5 Water Quality and Quantity Commissioner Turner and Chair Brown discussed the previously used approach - if there were four affirmative comments to an item, it did not need to be discussed. Chair Brown spoke about Key Issue 4. Commissioner Cyrus said that the mitigation for resorts, if the source is a well, requires that they mitigate surface rights at a ratio of 1.8; but it seems like this is backwards. State law protections were discussed. Terri said we don't necessarily track water use on small developments but do think about what the impacts are. Peter Gutowsky said that domestic wells are exempt under a certain amount and a recognized collaboration has to occur. Chair Brown asked about Key Issues 1 and 2 and whether they say the same thing as mitigating new development. Commissioner Klyce asked what constitutes new development, and Chair Brown asked again about whether we were repeating key issues 1 and 2. Peter said we are recognizing that water relates to everything in our region, and we are transitioning from water users to recognizing limitations in the water supply. Today domestic wells are permitted outright and there are concerns about the number of domestic wells — several thousand of the predicted 30,000 additional County residents will rely on these. It is a divisive issue — there was legislation proposed and tabled that was very controversial and produced a big backlash. Peter said any new use concerning water could be considered under this issue. Chair Brown felt that 1 and 2 cover the bases, and perhaps we could add the word "development" to #1. Chair Brown spoke about Goal 4, on which the vote was split. Terri said that right now there is not a lot of coordination between zoning and water, for example, and the goal is to think about this. Commissioner Klyce said that in Terrebonne the water supply will soon be insufficient. Commissioner Irvine asked if we have development policies, and Terri said we are trying to build an awareness and alert people to thinking about them. Vice Chair Criss asked if "development" was defined as a house or subdivision; Terri said it was both. We are trying to recognize a tie between development and water use. Commissioner Klyce asked if state law does not regulate wells, is this trying to do that? Terri said it only indicates we are trying to keep an eye on things. Peter spoke about a Deschutes Water Alliance -funded study regarding water issues which acknowledged the cumulative concerns about domestic wells. Planners are hard -wired to look out 20 years; the Commissioners get to decide what policies they would like to see in this document. Chair Brown asked about other agencies setting water rules for the County; when we talk about coordinating them, are we meddling in something that is handled by other agencies? Peter said that coordination is central to long-range planning, and Terri added we are responsible for development. Commissioner Cyrus asked if we are overlooking something in 2.2.4 — perhaps we need a drainage project in South County and the balance in North County. Vice Chair Criss said it had actually been suggested. Peter mentioned an article in the paper regarding geothermal using grey water for energy. Vice Chair Criss spoke about studies for South County groundwater and said that more data is needed — do we have enough technical information? He questioned banning new development in places where we don't know if we have enough water. Commissioner Turner mentioned that he didn't see anything in Goal 4 about mitigation. Nick asked if we should say "coordinating land use and water policies." Chair Brown said Goal 4 is modified to say "land use" instead of "development," and the Commissioners agreed. Chair Brown indicated policy 2.5.3 showed four votes indicating modifications were needed. Commissioner Klyce asked why the County would not support irrigation districts. Peter said several have asked us to become members, and there are also grant opportunities. Chair Brown and Peter discussed 2.5.4 and whether it needs to be a separate policy. They agreed that it does. 7 Section 2.5.8 will be deleted as redundant. Peter said 2.5.17 was recommended by the Irrigation District. Regarding action items 2.5.1 through 2.5.22 — Nick asked if there are any that should be drafted/incorporated. Chair Brown said 2.5.9 and 2.5.10 contained comments about policy. Peter told Vice Chair Criss that 2.5.5 indicated we were trying be committed to South County. Chair Brown said he took exception to "rural sewers" as the solution, which perhaps should say "alternatives." Peter said it may fall under the Goal 11 definition. He and Vice Chair Criss discussed adding language about preparing amendments to Goal 11 if a public health hazard is declared; Chair Brown mentioned using the term "alternative systems." Peter and Vice Chair Criss discussed the designations and indicating that the County would expedite alternatives. Commissioner Turner wanted to move Action Item 2.5.1 up to 1. We have heard a lot of testimony about the fluctuation of water in the Deschutes system. He wondered why three people wanted it deleted. Chair Brown said he wanted to see most of the action items removed. Nick suggested encouraging efforts to address fluctuating levels in the Deschutes River system. Chair Brown felt a tradeoff needed to be made between piping and irrigation districts. Regarding 2.5.9, Commissioner Klyce said he finds the phrase "redlot" could be applied to much of South County. Terri and Peter discussed primary and secondary uses; Commissioner Klyce asked if a house could be put on an undeveloped redlot. He and Peter discussed accessory structures. Commissioner Klyce said that some people in South County had put RV's on redlots during the summer, as well as garages. Peter spoke about permitted uses. Commissioner Klyce asked if that type of use would be prohibited under 2.5.9, and Peter said that there are natural systems providing ecological benefits. Chair Brown said he understood that water being processed to filter/claim is surface water and not groundwater, so it is different than groundwater in a redlot. Peter spoke about the possibility of redlots being located in wetland areas — there are probably some. The word "feasible" will be reinserted. Chair Brown said he would like to see the 2.5.9 action item deleted and asked if 2.5.10 referred to Pronghorn. Peter said that siting requirements do emphasize conservation, and Pronghorn is using treated effluent from the City of Bend. Use of the word "support" and leaving this section intact as a policy were discussed. It was decided to remove 2.5.11. Commissioner Turner said, regarding 2.5.1, that he would like to move it to Rivers and Streams. Terri said a number of people have commented that we should merge the two chapters. b) 2.6 Rivers, Streams and Fish Goal 1 - Commissioner Turner discussed his impression of key issues and felt there should be a statement about a viable, healthy ecosystem. Chair Brown said he had a problem with the word "restore," and would like to see "maintain and improve" instead. Commissioner Turner said there may be sections of the Deschutes River Basin that need to be restored, and Chair Brown said they would be considered "improved." Goal 2 — Commissioner Klyce felt it was a matter of state law. Nick said this was important to the Board. Chair Brown suggested using the words "support" and "endangered species." E:3 Goal 3 — Terri said this was repeated by the public many times — access to outdoor recreation. Chair Brown and Commissioner Turner asked if we could just say "improve access to rivers and streams while protecting private property rights." Goal 4 — Nick asked if we could combine it with Goal 1. Chair Brown wanted to delete the last three words. 2.6.1 — Commissioner Klyce discussed the problem with inconsistent studies. 2.6.3 — Chair Brown wondered about listing agencies. 2.6.5 — Chair Brown said we already have something saying to use the best information available. 2.6.6 — Commissioner Cyrus said he could see a situation where there are adjacent landowners, and a swap would be better. Commissioner Irvine said we had come up with language in another chapter as to what was feasible. 2.6.9 — Vice Chair Criss thought that something like this should be included. Peter added that most significant habitat for trout is located outside the County. Protection of spawning areas and changing the language to "support and enhance native fish populations, habitat and restoration," were considered. c) 2.7 Regional Problem Solving for South Deschutes County 2.7 — RPS — Peter said it was our professional opinion that until there is a commitment and staff capability to update that section, it must be in place as is. We heard testimony tonight about changes which we do not discount, and we know the community wants to revisit land use in this part of the County. Residents told us a year ago that they did not want to change anything about land use until they understood DEQ's comprehensive groundwater management approach. This provides the justification for the existing policies. Vice Chair Criss indicated that many residents think it has not gone far enough yet — we need to work with DEQ, DLCD, etc. It is important that the County be a partner. We should defer this for now. Nick added that we could change the name to South County Community Plan, and it is in our work plan as a priority. There are additional issues such as zoning and transportation which need to be discussed. Chair Brown suggested changing "residents express support," or deleting it, which Nick said was possible. Chair Brown asked again if we could use another phrase instead of Regional Problem Solving, and Nick said we could use South County Plan. V. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Nick spoke about the Destination Resort Work Group meeting. There is a guest ranch work group meeting this week. Linda Swearingen asked about fractional ownership of the units because it is so hard for ranchers to finance. The units are also only marketable in areas such as those near the river. Tom and Nick met with the La Pine Planning Commission last night about the transition. 0 Chair Brown said he and Commissioner Irvine will meet with Commissioner Baney regarding destination resorts. The grandfather clause was voted two different ways and it has tremendous implications for the County. Chair Brown and Commissioner Cyrus discussed representation of the Planning Commissioners. Chair Brown said he understood he could represent something that was already voted on but will check with legal counsel. Nick mentioned that in Redmond they had a liaison to the Board who could speak on behalf of the Commission. Vice Chair Criss mentioned the language in the work plan regarding working with South County, and they have a problem believing it. This is because of the Local Rule and a piece which is still in place. He does not understand why people have to put ATT's in areas that may wind up in community systems. We are wasting resources. He has spoken to people who have had to do this, and it is causing a tremendous financial impact. Most people do not have the money for these systems - why is money being spent? We have the Local Rule broken into two pieces, one of which was defeated by referendum and one part which was passed with an emergency clause in court. This needs to be rescinded. We need to put our resources together to make this work. The people of South County will be able to buy into a process if they see that it is possible. Vice Chair Criss spoke about a South County resident's problems with a required system and funding issues. He feels this needs to be brought to the Board. Nick said that the Board will likely conduct a public hearing on our work plan during the first week of June. This could be suggested in the public hearing (repeal of part of the Local Rule). Peter said it is in litigation and an environmental health issue, which may be difficult to untangle. Tom Anderson may be helpful in articulating concerns before the Board. Nick said that the public hearing is on CDD's work plan, so the public may testify at that time. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — May 13, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 10