j TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMHISSIONERS I'lEETING HINUTES.- -'-'~--'--_._-_._-' _._- P-r-i-a-Efy~-;------Ap-r-i-l- .-1'6~-t-----1-9-8-2-~-------- -------~--- --"------.-..-----.- ---- .----------- - --~-----.------- -,--_._._- ._-----_. __._- -.--.---~----.-------

Page 1

COMMISSIONERS .PRESENT: ·Carol Williams, Vice ChairwomanGerald A. Wood~ardr Commissitiner

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: F.E. Knight, Chairman(Attending O&C ~eeting in Sal~m)

STAFF PRESENT: Roger Pease, Administrative AssistantLynn Rosik, County CounselNina Gallino, Executive Rec.ording Secretary

CALLED TO ORDER BY Vice Chairwomart Carol Williams at 9:58 a.m_

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: A motion was made by CommissiOner Woodward .toapprove and sign the minutes of April 2.and April 7, 1982. The motionwas seconded by Commissioner Williams and carried with CommissionersWilliams and Woodward voting aye.

The March 1982 Commission Proceedings were not considered because theywere not completely read prior to th~·meeting.

DECISION RENDERED IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE REQUES'r (V-81~46) FOR THER&D&CTION OF THE ~INIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZE ONTW6 PARCELS, THE FIRST ONEFR0r1 6 r 000 SQUARE FEET TO 4,879.5 SQUARE FEET,. TIlE SECOND ONE FROM 6,000­SQUARE FEET TO 4,874 SQUARE FEET; MAURICE AND WILMA FLEMING, APPLICANTS;PACIFIC CITY: Lois Albright, attorney for the applicants, and Mike Wheeler,Planner, were present.

County Counsel summarized the Findings of Fact, Consl~sio~s of Law andDecisiort ~fter reading the title. Ms. Rosik stated that a hearin9 washeld before the Board on April 2, 1982 at· the hour of 10:30 a.m. It hasbeen heard by the Planning Commission and. was denied. The pro.perty is oneast side of Reuppell Avenue in Pacific City.

The applicants requested a division of a property into two hQrnesites z bothof which would be approximately 48 x 100 feet in a·zone where therninimumlot size is 6,000 square .feet. The request had been filed previously onNovember 24, 1980 and was denied by the Planning Commission on January 29,1981. The present application was made On October ;14, 1981. The zoninghas not ~hanged, but thete is a propos~l to change··the zoning to C~l.

with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement if the property issewered. .

Under the current zoning ordinance Section 5.050 General Exceptions toLot Size Requirements (grandfather clause) was discussed and t~stimony

taken at the hearings.

Hs. RosH<i sta·ted that she-had listed the variance criteria as written in Section8.020 and Goal 10 Housing which ieemed to be the most applicable of theGoals and Guidelines. She then discussed the application of Section 5.050which permits undersized lots as non-conforming lo~i if they were recordedprior~o the adoption of the ~oning or~inance in 19&9.

sh~ then stated that she gave the most pertinent h£storical data whichwas discussed at th~t hearing.

. ....

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 16 r 1982

Page 2

There were apparently two lots in 1969 when the zoning ordinance was adopted.However, Mr. & Mrs. Fleming bought the property as one lot as shown on theirdeed issued by Donald E. & Lois.J. Schaeffer. Therefore, the grandfatherrights of Section ~.050 would not apply to this property because it was pu£back into one lot.

The findings note that along ReuppellAvenue there are six lots \'lhich are non­forming under the zoning ordinance. The sUbject parcel is flat,_ is adjacen~

to the air strip and lies in the flood hazard zone. The area is served bywater - and sewer districts.

Tax Lot 4000 presently consists of approximately 9,753.5 square feet and isbuildable for single-family residential at this time. In the Findings ofFact it was found that Section 5.050 does not apply because the applicantspurchased the property as one lot.

In the- Conclusions of Law ~t is stated that the lot is presently hu~ldable

and there is no present hardship which would require that lots be created which areundersized. The subject parcel has present building rights. She also notedcase law which states that self-created hardships are not to be granted vari­ances. As it applied to Goal 10 there is no evidence showing there is in­adequate housing in the area making it imperative that undersized lots becreated. The"refore, the request should be denied and the Planning Commissiondecision upheld.

GUESTS: Mrs. Fleming and John Faudskar entered the meeting at 10:03 a.m. andJim Close entered the meeting at 10:07 a.m.

Commissioner Woodward noted that he did visit the property Tuesday evening.Based on the findings Commissioner Woodward made a motion to uphold thePlanning Commission's decision and deny the variance. Commissioner Williamsseconded the motion which carried with Commissioners Williams and Woodwardvoting aye.

CONSIDERATION OF LETTER AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFAGRICULTURE FOR COST-SHARE IN THE CONTROL OF TANSY RAGWORT AND OTHER NO~IOUS

WEEDS: Commissioner Williams read the letter aloud which was written to M~.

Leonard Craft of the Oregon Department of Agriculture regarding the Memorandumof Agreement.

Mr. Close stated there were misunderstandings and confusion last year in thatpeople were told there" would be cost-share funds and there were none. Heassured the Board that it won't happen this year.

A motion was made by Commission&:Woodward to sign the letter which accompaniesthe previously executed Memorandum of Agreement between County and the OregonDepartment of Agriculture for cost-share in the control of Tansy Ragwort andother noxious weeds. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Williams andcarried with Commissioners Williams and Woodward voting aye. The letter wassigned.

CONSIDERATION OF GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TILLAMOOK COUNTY AND DEPARTMENTOF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT FOR FUNDING OF COA-5TAL GO'AL IMPLE­MENTATIbN ACTIVITIEs FROM FEBRUARY 1, 1982 TO JUNE 3b, 1982 IN THE AMOUNTOF $13,333.00: Paul Benson, Planning Direct'or, stated that he had appliedfbr the grant in February and be~ame'eligible for receipt of these funds.The funds would b~ close to .the amount. necessary. to pay for the EstuaryPlanner position'througl;1 June 30, .1982. The'county's matching portion ofthe grant wo~ld come fr6m general offic~ costs and part· of his costs, also.The grant is not contingent upon thepassirig of ~he Co~prehensive Planat the May election. He also stated that as of July 1, 1982,. the departmentwill have fUnds to staff one position per ~ear. He also stated that anapplication and material should be ~oming for app~ibatian f6r grant fundingfor plan maintenance contingent upon the plan being submitted for acknowl­edgement.

f ~- .~;~_~}~~Cl~p;_~~N~~!'~~~~~!_C()}\l1E'"-'Cl'Il'RS_M~!!~G_MIl<tJTES ~ ~_~ g ~~.~3~__

I

Commissioner Woodward made a motion to approve.the Grant Agreement betweenTillamook County and the Department of Land Conservation and Developmentfor funding of Cbastal GoalI~plementationActivities from February Ip 1982to June 30, 1982; and to authorize Vice Chairman Williams to sign the'agreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Williams and carried withCommissioners Williams and Woodward voting aye. The agreement was signed.

UNSHEDULED: EXECUTION OF ORDER IN THE MATTER OF POSTING uNO DUMPING ~ ~500.

FINE" SIGN ON ROAD TO SANIT.ARY LANDFILL: The Order waS signed by- Commis­sioners Williams and Woodward and was previously approved ..

(·'0··..\ .

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF DECLARING 1982 AS THE NA'rIONALYEAR OF .DISABLED 'IN TILLAMOOK COUNTY: Commissioner Woodward has been ap~

fOinted as liaison person .

Commissioner Woodward made a m.otion to pass a Resolution in the ·.atter ofDeclaring 1982 as the 'Yearof the Disabled Person in. Tillamook County.The motion was seconded by Commissione~:Williams and carried with Commis­sioners Williams and Wo-odward voting aye.

UNSHEDULED: CONSIDERATION OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEWPORT TYPE­WRITER, INC. ANti tOUNTY FOR TYPEWRITER MAINTENANCE: County Counsel re­wrote the original agreemerit and recommended approval.

A motion was m~de by Commissioner Woodward to approve th~ MaintenariceAgreement between Tillamook.County and Newport Typewriter, Inc. for themaintenance of typewrite~s. Commissioner Williams seconded the motionwhich carried ~ith Commissioners Williams~nd Woodward 'v6ting aye. The

. agreement was signed.

Discussion was held regarding having all typewriters that are not in uselocated in one room, having the maintenance man inspect them, and thenp~rhaps have them auctione~ off. Commission~r Williams explained how the _school district ~ets rid of their old equipment.

SECOND PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO NORTHTILLAMOOK COUNTY SANITARY AUTHORITY: Elizabeth Merrill, attorney for NorthTillamook County Sanitary Authority (NTCSA), and John Johnson, Manager ofNTCSA, were present. Mrs. Merrill stated that all legal notices had beenposted· and all other legal requirements had been met.

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 16, 1982

Page 4

Mrs. Merrill reminded the Board that she had previously submitted copiesof her findings of fact for their review.

ft'The Firidings of Fact were entered as a part of the record. It was nbted ~_

that no petitions or requests were made for an election.' Mrs. Merrillwill prepare an Order for the Board's review and co,nsideration and theBoard will cause notice to be sent to the,State DeJ;lartment of Revenue.

A motion was made by commissioner Woodward to approve the anne~ation ofterritory known as Fork Island to the,North Tillamook County Sanitary Auth­ority based on Findings of Fact as ~resented. The motion was seconded byCommissioner Williams and carried with Commissioners WilIams and Woodwardvoting aye. It was noted that Chairman Knight had previously stated he wasin favor of the,:annexati6n ~nd requested it be noted 'at' this hearing.

RECESS WAS CALLED FROM 10:42 ~.m. to 1:32 p.m.

The meeting was reconvened at Tillamook City Hall,Council Chambers.

PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION QF ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY, TO THE NETARTSWATER DISTRICT' #26:' Guests present who s'igned the guest list were Jack H.Bau~ili, John Tuthill, E.J. Heesacker, Geraldine Narz, Chuck King~ton,

Edward G. Bygland, Betty Lorts, Frances Sumner, Roy Sumner, Bea Bolle,Richard Bolle, Mr. & Mrs. J.O. Chaney, Mr$. Vincent P. Schuster, Peter J.White, Mike Eisen, Virgil Danison, Wilma Fisher, Carol Apperson, Tula MaeDavis, Maes R. Beckwith, Gaynel F. Beckwith, Dorothy G. Puderbaugp, RexieLaurs, Hazel Edner, Betty Taylor, Maye Paynter, Betty Hill, Tonie K. N~emir

Katherine M. Baughman, Albert Howard Niemi, Ken Hill, John S. Griffith,Mike Cham~ P. Baughman, Al Kofoed, Percy Sy~ons, Hayden H. Bauperti David ttisen~ D010res Eisen, Lee Hanson, Donald M. Morley, Ron &,Paula Redman,Wayne Glenn, Ken Voges, Wallace DeBoer, C.L. Wall, Don Cullimore. Guestswho signed the speaker list were Franklin Piaceintini, Steven Janik,Roland Haertl, Ed Heesacker, John Tuthill, Geraldine L. Marz, Clare H.Bdner, Rosemary Heesacker, Bea Snow Reid, Margaret A. Pink"Alfred P.Krampert, Kenneth P. Bill, Hayden H. Haupert, Percy Symons, Mike Cham,Charle~ Kingston, Paul Baughman, Al Kofoed.

Vice Chairwoman Williams informed the guests how the meeting would be con­ducted and what length of time each speaker would be allowe~ pro~iding

they signed the list for speakers. She stated she would allow 15-20 minutesfor the attorneys and 5 minutes for all others.

It was noted that a letter had been ~eceived from Percy L." Symons who ob­jected to Netarts Water DistrictisprofOsed Ordinance No. 82;.,.1. CommissionerWilliams stated that this hearing was to consider Resolution No. 82-1 whichproposes the annexation of territory to the Netarts Water District.

It was also noted that a letter ha~ been received from ~eorge P. Winslow r Jr.,Attorney for the Netarts Water District under d~te of April 16, 1982 whereinMr. Winslow asked that the hearing be postponed or co~tinued to another timeso that he could appear. rhis request Was denied.

Clare Edner, Netarts Water District, showed maps and gave a brief hi_toryof the district from 1939 forward. He then stated he had been approachedby develppers some 24 months ago to provide water to the property where the ,district ~aid yes, and, no. The parcel wasn't all within the district bound­aries. Negotiations were not fruitful, Mr. Edner asked for an engineering

.. _T.ILLAMO.oK.CO_UKT_Y_BO.ARD~O.L_C_OHMISS.I.oNERS~MEETING~MIN.u~ESc ..c~.cage_5 __~1

Friday, April 16, 1982

study and budget problems arose. The district then asked that all thedevelopers get together and provide information that would enable ihedistrict to do one plan and one job instead of doing it piece m~al.

The developers did not do so, but the Capes develop~rs still wanted thedistrict ~o provide water for their development. The district advisedthem they would go ahead, but they still needed a plan and they' wouldlike to merge with the Netarts Bay Water. District. The district didnot receive further correspondence from the Capes developer after thefirst part of 1981.

In 1982 the OAR Rules were adopted which 'required a master plan to besubmitted by the district. The district then hired an engineering firm p

as ~id the Netarts Bay Water District. They took all areas within thedistricts including the dam ~rea and included it in the master plan.

John Ttithill, attorney, for Oceanside Water District, stated thet~ were anumber of points the district would like to make in opposition to theproposal. Be.deferred his time to Ed Beesacker who made the OcearisideWater District presentation to, the Board.

Mr. Beesacker stat~d that he ~s Vice Chairman of the·ciceansfde WaterDistrict, secretary of the Netarts 06eanside Sanitary District" he is agra~uate of the United States Military Academy at Westpoint, he believeshe' is authorized to practice law under the uniform code of military justice,in the armed services, he has taught wate'r hydraulics: at Westpoint, . he hasa master's degree from the Californi~ Institute of Technology in Aero­nautical Engineering, he is a resident of Ocea1'1sioe, he owns property inNetarts an~he is paying two user fees and taxes to the Netarts Water Dist­rict.

Mr. Beesacker then read from a pr~pared statement .• "The' Oceanside WaterDistrict protests the pending annexation of the Capes area to NetartsWater District as per the Netaits Water District Resolution number 82-1.

In the Spring of 1981, The Capes approached Netarts Water District to:ohtain water but were unable to do' so or to reach agreement with Netarts.'Instead they were faced with a proposed Ordinance number 81-1 concerningannexations, consolidations and/or mergers."

Mr. Beesacker stated that he thought at this point in his presentationthat Mr. Janik would have mide his presentation. He asked that he beallowed to defer the rest of his presentation until Mr. Janik has spoken.,Discussion was held between Mr. Tuthill and the Cha{rwoman r~garding time.Mr. Janik and Mr. Beesacker had conversation. Commissioner WilLiamsstated that if he wished to finish his·, presentation, she ,..ould give himtime after the attorney for the Capes hag. spoken.

Hr. Heesacker t'hen completed the reading of his prepared statement andsubmitted a packet cont~ining copi~~ of th~.statement, page 1 of theNetarts Water District Ordinance No~ 81-1, letter to Barry Hoag~in fromNetarts Water District under date of December 18, 1979, OceansLde Water­master's Report (no da~e)Appendix No.1 - Weir Calibration, an August 1981Daily Turbidity, Production and Chlorination Report by the Oceansid~ ,Water District on Short Creek, Page 1 of Netarts Water District's Or~inance

No~ 79-2, pagelof Netarts Water District's Ordinance No. 82-1, the min~

utes of the March 22, 1982 meeting of theOceariside'WaterDistrict As~~mbled

.Boardsmeeting, a revised edition of a fact sheet ~ated 4-15-82, a Geolog-

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April, 1982

ica1 Survey map showing Oceanside and Netarts Water District's water sheds t

and two pages of a proposed solution (no date or name).

Chairwoman Williams advised Mr. Heesacker that consolidation was not theissue before the Board, but instead, an annexation is being considered.

Mr. Tuthill explained why he felt that mention of the consolidation was rel­evq:nt.

Stephen T. Janik, Portland, stated he was an attorney. but was appearing pri­marily as a co-owner of the Capes. Se then explained that the developers hadtried to produce a project whic~by its own merits) would be perceived bypeople as being a real contribution to the area, one that was sensitivelydesigned and tailored to the community. They also attempted, through': the wayin which the~ as individuals related to this community, to not be perceived asoutsiders coming in, making a quick profit and to do damage to the community.In connection with that, they spent about $75,000.00 and two years of carefulplanning and study. The materials they submitted to the county planning staffwere determined by them to be the most sensitive plan ever submitted. Therest of Mr. JanikPs testimony is summarized as follows:

April 21, 1980 - letter to Mr. Edner thanking ~im for meeting with Janik andpartner, and indicat~d they would be moving fbrward with the Capes project.(document submitted) They have been working with Netarts Water District fortwo years and have over $600,000.00 invested in the project.

October 1980 - preliminary negotiations began. Their proposal was fair ~nd

they assured the community that the project would not cost them anything,Hookup fees were to have been $900.00 each or an overall cost to the Capes (.of $300,000.00. Netarts indicated need for new reservoir. In lieu of payingcash, Capes bffered to put in reservoir at their expense and asked when itwas finished and turned over to Netarts Water District that Capes receivecredit toward hook-up fees. Not appropriate to ask Capes to build reservoirplus pay over $300,000.00 in hook-up fees. Would in effect be double pay.

Early 1981 - almost monthly meetings with the district in effort to resolveproblems. Similar pattern began to emerge. Would agree to things in principleat Board meetings and then a document would be produced that in no way wouldresemble what had been agreed upon.

March 1981 - were looking for water for first phase of 60 units and thought itwas available, but it was not.

March 3, 1981 - letter to ~oard of district outlining need for 60 hook-upsand what they proposed to do toward building reservoir.

March 9~ 1981 - received letter from district •. "The district has declared thatthe district does not now have available sufficient treated water to supply,furnish and sell to all the present domestic users, f~ture domestic users andother domestic users within the district.~.·•• "At this time 60 hook-ups wouldnot be avai1able." •.• "The district board will not subject itself to civil andcriminal penalties from governmental units just to convenience a third party,."•• 1lWithout lirtlitation, one statement made in your March 3, 1981 letter that

y~ul.lweret wilklin9 tOthannex60Yhourk.l?rope:-tythto disltrdict on a cl

09

n8

dl

i-:ion thalt Y01u tW'.1.· no see more . an· 00 -ups ~n e ca en· ar year .. ~s camp eteyunacceptable. The conditions for annexation will be substantial.'1 the lettercOhcluded .• "The district board is willing to be cooperative and to do every-

j- ~ ----------~-_._-_._-TILLAMOOK COUNTY -:SOARD ·OP-COMMTSSIONERS-I1iEETING-rUNUTES­

Friday, April 16, 1982

.thing possible through an agreement, even though the district isriowapproaching dire emergency situations caused by your program."

The district th~n put all tha t~rms Capes wouldn~t agree to in an Ordin­ance.known as Ordinance No. 81-1 which was never passed. The ord±nance

. would require. of a developer that prior to a "mere"" application .. "payall capital improvements apportioned. t·o the. subdi vision r all hook-up fees,connections and meter installat.ion costs and to impose such other terms and.conditions as the Board may determine."

The next. ordinance requirement w.as. that at· the time' of a request for: an­nexation the developer would have to pay to the district hook~up feesat the date of ann~xation for e~isting users and at the same rate foradditionalhoo~-ups to be requested within the next seven year~. ""lost rev­enues, fees arid taxes from 1964 to the date of annexation". Revenues thedistrict would have received had th~ property been developed in 1964 withno understanding of how many units may have been developed. Fees forwater which was never provided Over almost 18 years. Ordinance was un­reasonable.

He then asked John Osburne, former attorney'forCity of Portland and nowin private practice with Rankin, McMurray I Osburneln Portland,. to 'reViewthe ordinance. He quoted from Osburne '.s opinion •. " In our opinion., certain:provisions of. the ordinance eXGeed.the legal authority of the distric~

and could be successfully challenged by. the develope~" "The statute doesnot authorize the district to require as. a condition of its approval thatthe owners of the annexed property pay costs and expenses which are norm­al operating expenses of ·the di str i ct ."." Simi lar ly ,we believe a waterdistrict has no athority to charge a property owner for lawyer's fee~ orits administrative and engineering costs as a condition of annexation."~hey had been as~ed to pay all of .Mr. Winslow's attorneys fees at the'rate of $70.00 per hour for Mr. Winslow, $20.00·per hour for his secretaryand 20¢ per page for copies. "With respect to hook-Up fees, we know of no­authority for a water district to charge hook-up fees prior to the timethat water service can be provided." "The requirement for payment of .revenues, fees and taxes from 1964 to the date of annexation is, in ouropinion, wholly without authority." ~With respect to deposits, theBoard has n~' authority to require sucti a deposit of bond." There areother numerous illegalitie~ reported in the letter.

August 6, 1981 - letter from Mr. Winslow to Mr. Aragon whom Mr. Winslowhad never had contact with before. Out of the blue Mr. Winslow stated(in the letter) .. "The Board has considered your recent proposed serviceagreement and engineer's agreement .. (Mr. Janik explained they had pre­pared agreements) .. "Neither agreement meets with present objectives ofthe district. The aoard will consider,this matter further after 90 dayshas elapsed from the date of this letter."

August 1981 - Ordinance was rife with illegalities and unfair. Capesproposed a fair business deal. It is unclear wheth~r they (Netarts WaterDistrict) do or do not have any capacity.

He stated they then went to the Oceanside Water District, proposed thesame business transaction to them and now have an agreement with thembecause it is fair.

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 16, 1982

Page 8

October 1981 - Correspondence from Mr. Winslow regarding minimum 90-daywaiting period and •• "~he District is not interested in a service contract.The District is now exploring means to develop the District's systetn. Thif" f.-·will necessitate a new approach. Whether by development within the Dist-'rict or by annexation to the Distr±ct, this approach ~ill·require certaini~provements to be developed atthe cost of the developer, together withs~bstantial·prepaymentfor all improvements necessitated outside of thear~a to be deVeloped. No offsets or credits will be allowed. All con­struction of improvements outside ~f the development will be done solelyby the District. .There are many other details that will be involved. Itrust that this will aid you in your .development ~lans."

He then explained that at the beginning of this year they had what theythought to be a fair and reasonable agreement with Oceanside which hasexcess and·.they.ttil.ere stymied· in their efforts to reach a comparable agreementwith Netarts Water District.

1he next occurrence was the Board of Commissioners meeting of March 10, 1982which was an informational meeting for them (Capes) to explain their posi­tion. Mr. WinSlow ~as also there. Mr. Janik stated that a "little gamewas being played with all of us. n "Ittnight have been interesting for all of usto know or at least have the .courtesy of knowing, that a petition for annexation,unbeknownst to us,/unbeknownst to you, had then, or was about to be, filed.~s 'we all sat the~e in that meeting, Mr. Winslow and Netarts had thatpetition already signed and filed. I think that is such an extraordinarylack ·of candor and courtesy, that I think you can understand our frustration.

He stated that they are prepared to continue work on this (the developemen· rThey have draft agreements with Oceanside (water district), they have com- ~

missioned engineering work which has been d6ne, the reservoir has beensized, the lines have been laid out. They are ready to start workingdrawings on the reservoir. They have agreed to oversize the reservoirso that, if needed, other people can get it. They have agreed they willbe willing to pay for that oversizing to be reimbursed sometime in .the futureby Oceanside. if that is what they would like to do. They have also agreedthey will only teek reimbursement for actual incremental cost rather thanthe average cost.

They find themselves "caught .up in this historical struggle between twodistr~ctsn and they certainly approve consolidation. They would prefer towork with Oceanside Water District. They are willing to pay their fairshare, and when these legal impedements are removed, they are willing toproceed with building what will be a community water system facility to b~nefi1

not only us, but a number of others. He then stated that under their ·agree­ment with Oceanside, they will not cause other citizens to pay extra costs.

}1r. Janik continued, stating that the issue is .. " do we end up in Netart.s ordo we end up in Oceanside?" He then compared the two alternatives as fol­lows: "Those who would move us into the Netarts District for water servicewould have to do so acknowledging that we've been unable to reach an agree­ment for two year~, and lord knows how many more y~ars before we will, thedistrict is apparently talking about selling some bonds because they don'thave the facilities now to serve us, there's a historical, now, disputebetween us, it clearly w~ll be a matter of controversy, and if these il­legal conditions continue to be proposed we will certainly fight them ina more appropriate judicial form. On the other hand, you compare thatwith Oceanside. Not only do they have capacity, but they're dumping the

- -- TILLAHOOKCOUNT-YBOARDOF-COMMISSIONERSMEE~-ING-MINUTEBFriday, April 16,' 1982

.. l?age.9

very water we need into the ocean. Buying that surplus water can on~y

make th~ir treatment and the£r system more efficient and thereby helpcontrol costs."

He then stated there were certain legal standards as set out in ORS 19B.805,198.870 and 199.462.which state it is fair for the Board of Commissionersto consider economic, demographic and socialogical trends and projectionsin the proposed area and the prospective physical development of the landthat would be impacted. by this. annexa·tion. '''The Boa~~d is also entitled,. toconsider the benefits of whether this property should or should not beannexed, b~nefits to the various districts and to the prope~ty itself.And, finally, the. Board is directed to consider whether it 1s feasible forthe district seeking to annex this area to serve it. It is their submit­tal that this district does not have the capability in any respect to besitting here asking to annex us when they don't have· the capacity to .serveus and when they would attempt to do s~ when a neighboring district ·isdumping the water we need into the ocean. Finally, we believe that Neta.rtsown resolutions do not autho~ize it to be here seeking annexation. Xt isironic to me that I spent two years trying to get annexe.d and Netartskept telling me they wouldn't annex me and that they didn't h~ve oapacityand now I'm ~itting here today fighting an unwanted annexation when they·vegot a resolution. that said they prohibit annexation for a period of timethat is not yet expired. We would very much like to get this projectgoing. We feel we have played fair, by the rules of the game, both thosewritten and unwritten. We feel that we have stood before you hohestly.We feel that this project will clearly make money for us, we hope, butit's alsog6ing to contribute a $50,000,000.00 project to this countywith no pUblic subsidy, no pUblic investment. We, therefore, very genuinelyrequest that you deny this petition for annexation and that we are al10w~d

to gO forward to work with Oceanside Water."

Mr. Janik submitted a packet of the documents which he referred to in h~s

presentation along with copies of the statutes he cited.

Dr. Franklin P~cientini,. co-owner of the Capes property, stated they hadacquired the p~operty over three years ago and were excited about theproposed devel6pment of it. The plans were oVBrwhelmingly approved byall the legal bodies ~nd they felt they have a very good relationship inthe community.~ According to him, if they are faced to go back to Netartsthrough this annexation and with the type of requirements that were put·upon them in the nature of the emergency ordinance and other financialrequirements, the bottom line is there may not be a development. He ex~

pressed disappointment that he had to be here and that they had notbeen notified of the proposed annexation and the turn of events that hadtaken place.

Roland Haertl deferred his time until later in the hearing.

Geraldirie Marz' deferred her time to Ed Heesacker.

Rosemary Heesacker deferred her time to Ed Heesacker~

Vera Shaw ·deferred __ . her time to Ed Heesacker.

Margaret Pink deferred her time to Ed Heesacker.

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESF rid a y, Ap r i 1 16,· 19 8 2

Page 10

Alfred Krampert, property owner and ~esident within Netarts Water District'.stated that he bacame aware of the battle between the districts on April10, 1982. When he bought his property he carefully investigated both dist-.ricts and the reason he settledonNetarts Water District is because hefelt that the water rights and the facilities an~ future prospects fordevelopment of Oceanside Water District would create horrendous costs forthe Oceanside Water District. He made the point that he had nothing togain financially as opposed to all others who have testified.

He then referred to page 3, paragraph 9 of a letter from the Capes to KenHill of the Oceanside Water District under date of August 25, 1982 and heread as follows .•. "An extensive discussion ensued on tank size, the prob­lems revolved around (1) Underwood property up to l~O users, (2) Cronant,maybe 6 to 10 users now, but up to 30 possible, (3) Hoagl.fn,j: about 10,(4) that property currently Winadequat~ly' served by Netarts, (a) Simmons,45, (b) Wilkerson/Hawkins, about 16. II He stated that the Wilkerson/Ha~lkins

affected him. When he purchased his property he, as a property owner andas a taxpayer and as a resident had certain inalienable water rights. Hethinks it is illegal for any other water district or a developer to nego­tiate his water rights. He further has discovered that at least ane memberof the Oceanside Water Board is on that board illegally. He stated he didnot have time. to bring up other items and that the cost of water from.Ocean­side would be a great deal more than what Netarts can produce for him. Mr.Krampert then stated that .• "these gentlemen have came up here and triedto tell me that they are going to serve me at a lower cost and it is anabsolute falsehood." O~r. Krampert staoted that he would deliver a copy ofthe above mentioned letter to the Board of Commissioners}

Kenneth Hill deferred to Mr. Heesacker.

aree

~.

Hayden Haupert, president of King Realty, half owner in Whiskey Creek RanchSubdivision, and an additional seventy-seven acres in Sections 4,5,8 and 9 gavetestimony. He has been involved with the Netarts Bay Water District sinceit was formed in 1955 or 1956. Rolph Fuhrman and he began to develop theWhiskey Creek Ranch Subdivision, at which time Mr. Haupert was a member ofthe Tillamook County Planning Commission and during his appointment hissubdivision plat was brought before the Planning Commis~ian. Mr; Edner wasalso a member of the Planning Commission at that time. oIn order to completethe filing of the plat and obtain approval of the CommisSion he went to thesecretary of the then Netarts Water District, but he was also the secretaryof the Netarts Bay Wat~r District. He has a letter from Mr. Lester Riggs,now deceased, which· states that he would furnish water to all of the WhiskeyCreek Ranch subdivision. With that assurance he and Mr. Fuhrman developed16 lots which were subsequently sold and the buyers were told they would beable to get water. He made several applications through the Netarts BayWater District who met with the Netarts Water District who would not ack­nowledge the letter from Mr. Riggs. Therefore, he has not been able toobtain water to date. He then stated .. "I am not interested in a war. I aminterested in a merger of the Netarts Bay Water District and the NetartsWater District, providing however, that there is indisputable, legal languagewhich requires consolidation of all three districts plus the sanitary dist­rict.

___. T_ILLAMO_OKcGOUKTX_BOARILDX_COMRI_SS_LO_NERS_MERTTKG_MINU_T_ES c Pag:e__l1Friday, April 16, 1982

The next ~peaker was Percy Symons, owner of Terra-Sea Subdivision andowner of a block in Avalon· Subdivision. He stated that he was in some­what the same position with water as Mr. Haupert. He has 100# waterPressure in some areas, but in the nort~ end it is down to about 25#.which is not sufficient for fire fighting Or anything else. He wouldbe in favor of consolidation if it is the the way he can get water. Heexplained that he.put in the.original 6" line which supplies Terra-Seaand Wilkersons at their own costs. He ·then repeated t~at he would bein favor of consolidation, annEixatie>nor anything that would. get ·theproper volume of water to the property~.

Mr. Symons felt that the Netarts Water Distr.ict. Ordinance #82-1 wastoo restrictive. He stated he had two streams~"down there", one of themflows 2,610 gallons per hour. If it is necessary to sell the propertyhEi wants the owner to have the privilege of using' that stream and theordinance would restrict that. He is in the Netarts Water District.

A short recess was called between 3:03 p.m. and 3:15 p.m.

Mike Cbam deferred ·to Mr. Heesacker.

Charles Kingston, resident of Oceanside and president of the OceansideWater District spoke. in rebuttal of the statem~nt of the Netarts Water

. District concerning a master plan .as described in .the Oregon Administra­tive Rules-Public Water- Syste~s-Chapter333-4~-220.•. "The requirementsfor plan submission and reviewed require~ents.do not require a masterplan." The master plan was only adopted by the. State administrativebody as a vehicle to $ave small districts the expense of larger reviewfees. If the district has a master plari the revie",~ fee 'is only $250.00as compared to additionaL fees ranging'from $200.00 to $255.00 for morethan one plan submission. He was, there£ore~ irate that two meetingswere held up while waiting for submission of a mast~r plan because·itis nota requirement of the statutes. . .

Paul Baughman deferred to Mr. Heesacker.

Al Kofoed, resident and user of water in the Netarts Bay District statedthat much of what had been said at this,hearing was not relevant to theissue which is the proposed annexation to the Netarts Water District.He than asked that the Chairman, at the next hearin~, grant the same timeto the proponents of the Netarts system inasmuch as their attorney is notpresent.

Co

He stated that when the Netarts Bay Water District was formed .in 1964,under the legal conditions which existed at that time, there was amplewater for all the development that could conceivably occur within theconfines of th~ Netarts Bay Water District .. and Cape Lookout ~ark. At thattime, according to Mr. io~oed, the district contacted the State and ~sked

them if they would like to be included in the district. The State electedto not get involved. Sometime later the Clean Wate~ Act was passed andall kinds of stringent regulations were issued which Netarts Water Dist­ricthas, at great expense, c·omplied with. Because ·0£ the great expenseand because there were no grants available, the district felt their firstobligation was to their own district an~ not to Net~~ts Bay District whichwas purchasing water from them.- Therefore, they had to pla6~ a moratoriumon further hook-ups for the Netart~ Bay Water Oi~trict.'

Mr. Kofoed stated that at the time the moratorium went into effect the

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 16, 1982

Page 12

Netarts Water District Board was not keeping the system in good r~pair

in that there were extensive leaks, no one was reading the meters andusers were disregarding leaks on their own property and were wateringday and night. As a result, the Netarts Bay Water District was usingmore water than the entire Netarts Water District.

He expressed hope tha:t the matter could be settle amicably, that theBoard of Commissioners would grant Netarts Water District equal time~

and that Netarts Water District would not use time on extraneous materialthat does not apply to the matter at hand.

Vice Chairwoman Will~ams deferred to Commissioner Woodward who stated thathe would like to hear rebuttals before h~ commented.

Roland HaertI, Project Manager for the Capes Development" addressed theissues of cost impact on present users. It has been their attitude thattheir development would not impact present users in any way. He under­stands that in order to serve present users in the Netarts and Netarts BayWater District, certain improvements have to be made. He fUrther under­stands that in order to supply water to the Capes Development Company, someconnection additions, at a minimum, would have to be made" to the pipe linedistribution system.

M+. Haertl stated that •• "If the assumption is made that these improvemenstcan be funded by Netarts Water District, which is highly doubtful becauseit would probably require - a bond issue, then the cost which we should pick up,an approximate $350,000.00 to $500,000.00 range for the to"tal improvementcost, would cause an annt:lal user fee increase for the 525 hook-t:lps withinthe Netarts and Netarts Bay Water Districts of approximately $120.00 ,a year. This is based on the assumption of saying we have improvementsof about $400,000.00 and we know that N~tarts{spring needs a water tank,~e know that Netarts has inadequate treatment capacity, add some miscel­laneous improvements that usually occur that hadn't been thought of, assum­ing a bond issue rate .. interest rate of 12%, which is lower than you couldprobably get right now, and a.fifteen year retirement plan for the bond.r W9t:lld hope that this is, and should be compared, to the impact of theplan that was originally prep~red by the Capes Development Company andproposed by the Capes to Netarts Water District, and, under which proposal\ve feel we were double-crossed and not fairly dealt with. I have no othertestimony."

Mr. Heesacker deferred to Mr. Tuthill, attorney representing Oceanside Water,who stated .• "Basically our position is"this, we believe that the prior re-cord indicates the complete failure of the Netarts-Ocean .. excuse me,the Netarts Water District to be able to serve the proposed annexed area.The annexed area has a water usage of approximately 300 users. An additional3~0 users or hook-ups ,to that area would be a significant increase to theNetarts Wat~r District. That increase ha~ by ordinance, declared emergencies,and letters to ot4er property owners have been found to not be able to bemet by the Netarts Wat.er DistJ::"ict." In addition, he: s::ub:mi tted for' the recorda letter from Caroline Decker of Stan Decker Real Estate who would like "tohave p1.lrc:hased and developed property adjacentt td tbeir present subdivision, but\'1"as told by Netarts Water District that theywou.1dhave to purchase a la~ge

holding tank and devel"op tiheirown system. They are violently opposed to I(.the annexation of any property in this area, including the Capes property .to Netarts. She also stated that it appears that the Netarts Water Districtis against growth and development, that Ordinance #82-1 is restrictive and

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESApril 16, 1982

Page. 13

costly and the area at issue is more apprbpriately designed for theOceanside Water District rather than Netarts and that a better solutionshould be developed. She believes that growth would be retarded byannexation to the Netarts Water District. (Letter submitted)

Mr. Tuthill then noted that a letter to Barry Hoaglin under date ofDecember 18, 1979 from Netarts Water District also denied serV5ce tohis property. (The letter is includ~d in Mr. Heesacker's submissionand refers to p.roperty knovm as lSlO 30CC 900)

Mr. Tuthill then displayed a map which indicated the area outlined inred as being the property proposed for annexation which lies between. th~

Netarts Water District and the Oceanside Water District. He then showedthe Hoaglin property and described it as the northwest cornaro He alsopointed out the Decker property which was discussed in her letter.

He.then stated there is a system nearbj, that if the Capes Developmentproposal were accepted, as it has been by O~eanside Water District,there would be placement of a tank (jridicated by hash marks on the map)which would provide water to all those areas south of the current Ocean­side Water District line to Fall Creek. It would include those thatare getting water from Netarts and those that are proposed in the area.Those that are existing need not be included, its simply planning forthat. He alio stated.that Oceanside is planning for additional waterrights and wou~d rtot be taking any away from Mr. Krampert. They are onlylooking for a larger capacity that Cbuld include him if he desired.

gallonsThere is a current surplus of· 107,OOO/which is in direct conflict withthe amount of water that is currently available to Netarts. He thenstated •• "It's intersting t6 note that currently-the gallons per usagebetween the Netarts Water District and the Oceanside Water District, evenif we ~an accept the figures that are there, are significantly different.For 473 users in Netarts they are pumping 3,200,000 gallons annually.For 295 users in Oceanside we're pumping 827,000 gallons. On a per Userbasis, .. now, that is, of ¢ourse, a per user of those people that arebeing metered and paying. :So, we're only able to go on those. Theremay be those in the NetartE; District that are using., but not paying. II

Mr. Tuthill wa~ advised th'~ the figures he was quoting were monthly,not yearly. The 6,783 are 'used monthly per user as opposed to 2,800currently being used in Oceanside, according to Mr. Tuthill. He gavehypothetical reasons why there is a larger per user amount of water usedin the Netarts Water Di~trict. He then stated there are problems in theNetarts system which should be taken care of by them and not by the de­velopers who are coming in ~to the area.

According to Mr. Tuthill, Oceanside Water District has enough gallonage tosupply 693 ~sers ....• enough to supply water to the Capes Developmentproperty. Hr. Tuthill .then stated .. " It's not a .matter of a war betweenthe two, because the war.between Netarts an~ Oceanside should not be ex­isting. What should be is-a position of compromise, it should be a posi­tion of wo~kipg tog~ther, but it's apparent that Capes haven't been able towork together with Netarts, its apparent that other developers haven'tbeen able to work together with Netarts, and it is apparent that Oceansideis in a position to be able to do that. Finally, I would ~dentify thatthere has beeri this unwillingness of the owner of the proposed annexatidrito b~ annex~d into the Netarts Water District. Assume that you were theowner of that pr.operty, as s.ume 'tha t . you are the' person that s imply was

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 16, 1~82

. Page 14

never informed that your property was going to be annexed. Based upon that rwhat would be your response? Especially if you had been trying to get intothat area for two years prior to that. Simply, it astounds me that wehave the problem in the first place. Finally, we believe that the economicconsideration, the demographic usage in terms of water r in terms of availa­bility of water and the sociological trends that currently exist in the areaand the projections are best served by the Oceahside W~ter District ratherthan the Netarts Water District."

Vice Chairwoman Williams asked if there were others who wished to commentand received no reply. She then advised that she would not adjourn the hear­ing because George Winslow, attorney for the Netarts Water District, was notable to be at this hearing. She beleives the district has some pertinentinformation in the form of a report by Andy Klien which has not r at thistime, been reviewed by the district. She stated that she would probablyrecess the meeting to April 30 r 1982 at which time she would like to have theKlien Report and r also, to have Mr. Klien present.

She then stated that annexation is what was being discussed and not consoli­dation. If, within the next two weeks r the districts deciBe that consolidationis the route that will be taken, she asked that the Board be notified. Shealso set May 21, 1982 as a tentative date for the second public hearing in thematter.

Mr. Janik and Mr. Tuthill asked that they be provided copies of the KlienReport prior to the continuation of this hearing on April 30, 1982. Mr. Ednerstated that they would receive them, but only after review by the district.

Vice Chairwoman Williams advised Mr. Edner that she will allow a full twentyminutes for Mr~ Winslow to comment on April 30 r 1982. She expressed the hopet,hat it will be a work ses siori.

Mr. Edner ma~e further comments in regard to previous presentations. Hementioned Mr. Heesacker stating he was well qualified for military law, butthis is not a military court. He also said that the ORS's clearly statethat the plan will be drawn by a registered Oregon engineer, not a Californiaengineer.

Commenting on statements made by Mr. Janik, Mr. Edner stated .• "Mr. Janik'sstatements that he made were over a period of time ... yes r I've talked to him,.. yes r the Board has agreed to certain things ... lt was the fine print that weobjected to. I didn't know that all these things were going to comeuPr andwith George unable to attend, I'm not prepared to furnish those things. I dohave all of these things. As far as Dr. Paecentini's comments, he was talkingabout the money it was costing, going to cost r we have a program with ourmaster plan that will sure save him lots of money. There have been commentsthat we do not have water, we do not haVe treatment facilities .•. I mentionedbriefly on that to begin with that these developments corne in, th~lay thewhole thing on you, so to speak, we've got to have water for 3l5 .. no systemis built for way-out. Your moneys are limited by FHA r DEQ, EPA, whomevermight fund it. So, therefore, the needs are just ior the immediate needs_ AsNetarts Bay will well remember, we wanted, when their plans were being de~

termined, we wanted a 6" line up that area .. There was only some 20, maybe30 ·people to go in on it. They couldn't raise enough money for a 6" line <.so FBA .made them put in a 4" line which now, a few years dawn the line herel isinadequate. This is growing pains that happens to every district. You haveto have a little experience rating to know this. Districts that do not have

-------T~LLAMOOK-G-OUN-T-Y---BOARDOF-G OMM-LS S-I-ONE-RS-~lEE-'I'-I-NG---'----------------.. -------- ·--·Page-1-5-------·Friday, April 16, 1982

the experience rating, ,that. have not been up against this sort of thingdon't realize this, and you fall victim to these things and then"You dohave problems. We are not without problems, but they are not, unsolvable~so to speak."

H~ then stat~d th~t major or new construction by the neW OARfs have, tobe accompanied by an approved master plan.

Mr. Edner stated that there had been talk about the Capes not beingaware o,f the 'proposed annexation ofth'eirproperty. The property isuninhabited and, according to Mr'. Edner,' notification is not r'equired.

He then addressed Mr. Haupert's comments stating that surplus water isvery hard to identify since the Clean Water Act was p~ssed. He also'~tat~d

that Oceanside was dumping untreated water in tha ocean.

He, then read the Netarts Bay'Water Distri~t fa6t sheet which was submittedfor the record,and the F~ct Sheet'which was also submitted for the record.

Mr. Edner then advised the Capes people that the district's master planis going to show that they can be served water immediately at a very, verylow cost and if what they say&bout, not causing any' p,roblems to the '~eople of the area is true, he does not see any problems. He then statedthat the district would be happy to make,the i~form~tion (Klein report)available at the appropriate time. . ' /

I/ ~

Vice Chairwoman asked that the Klien report, be mad~ a~ailable by MondaY,April 26, 1982. She then stated that the, meeting was' rec!jlsed until April30, '1982 at 1:30 p.m. /" /,

, _/""""7. ' /'

R~~;'~'CY~llY su~~t~,~d,

By " ./ ~."". ~N na Gallino

ecording Secretary

l,.....,,'~'\\i\j"..........

Gerald A. Woodward, Commissioner