TILLAMOOK COUNTY-BOARD- OF COMMISSTONERS MEETING-MINUTES.Friday) April 30, 1982

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Carol Williams, Vice ChairwomanGerald A. Woodward, Com.missio~er

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: F.E. Knight, Chairman(Vacationing)

STAFF PRESENT: Roger Pease, Administrative AssistantLynn Rosik, County CounselNina Gallino, Executive/Recording Secretary

CALLED TO ORDER BY Vice Chairwoman Carol Wi.lliams at 10:30 a.m. •.

Page -1

Commissioner Williams read a letter from Jack Madison of Tillamook pununder date of April 19,1982 wherein he requested that the Board cancelthis hearing. He also asked if the Board.would advise setting a meetingbetween pun and the Board to establish ground rules for defining a utilityzone. According to a message lefi by PUD staff, Hr. Madison ~as to hav~

been present thi~ date to submit a withdrawal of the zone ~hange request.

County Counsel was directed to write to PUD and advise them that theBoard prefers to wait until after the May 18, 1982 election to considersuch a meeting because of the uncertainty of the c6unty land use situationat this time.

Discussion was held regarding the pos~jbility of a utility zone, an~ ofthe hearing that would be necessary.

A telephone call was made to Tillamook PUD ~ho requested withdrawal ofthe zone change reqpeit and stated they' would submit the request in writ­

. ing.

A motion was made by Commissioner Wood~ard to accept Tillamook PUDts re­quest for withdrawal of the zone chang~ request. Commissioner Williamsseconded the motion which .carried with Commissioners Williami ind Woodwardvoting aye.

UNSCHEDULED: APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF PACIFIC DUNES UNIT 1f:2:. Ron Larson;ub;itted-;~bmitted~he-plat-f~r-~ppr~vaT-.-------------------

A motion was made by Commissioner W60d~ard to approve and sign the finalpIa t 0 f Pac i feD un e Un i t 1f: 2 inS e c t i 0 rio 2 9, 3 N1 0, Man zan ita CitY . The L//

~otion was seconded by Commissioner Williams and carried with CommissionersWilliams and Woodward voting aye. .

Mr. Larson congratulat~d the Board for, hiring an engineer for the roaddepartment ..

He then discuss~d with t~e Bo~rd the excessive length of time requiredby the. P'lanning Depart~ent from the time of filing a preliminar~ plat tothetirst hearing. He noted a pl~t filed on Ma~ch30, 1982 ~hi~h wouldbe before the Planning Commission on August 8, 1982.

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 30) 1982

Page 2

Commissioner Woodward assured him that the process was being looked intoand that the Planning Department will get caught up as soon as possible. (,..'He also stated that he had met with Mike Wheeler and Paul Benson this .morning and is expecting a memorandum from them regarding the matter.

Mr. Larson stated that he felt Lynda Willard has done an excellent job at thepermit counter.

It was noted that a letter had been received from Mike Ashely of M.J. AshleyConstruction, Manzanita, regarding the legth of time required in obtaininga variance •

.Q0NgQER~TION_OF rUR!:!Il'I~OVER2.HOTOLOF-!!OMS!AD..J:lQME~'£E~R_1:Q_!1Q~~UM: Photosof the Homstad homestead on East Creek were found to be of no value to theBoard of Commissioner's Office other than historital. A motion was made byCommissioner Woodward to turn the photos over to the Pioneer Museum. Themotion was seconded by Commissioner Williams and carried w'ith CommissionersWilliams and Woodward voting aye.

UNSCHEDULED: LETTERS TO ASSESSOR, TAX DEPARTMENT AND SHERIFF REGARDING MAILDISTRIBUTION:---Letters-to-the-As;essor-,-the-Ta;-nepart;en~and-the-She~III

we~-e-:-sIgned~requestingthem to participate in the new mail distribution pro­cess upon a motion by Commissioner Woodward. The motion waS seconded byCommissioner Williams and carried wtih Commissioners Williams and Woodwardvoting aye.

UNSCHEDULED: DISCUSSION REGARDING EDITORIAL: AnCb;prehensIve-PIan-b;Ilo~easure-WaS-disc;ssed.Planning Director have reviewed it. and the Boarderation at the May 5, 1982 meeting.

editorial regarding theCounty Counsel and the

will review it for consid-

UNSCHEDULED: COUNTY COUNSEL REPORT ON LITIGATION: Ms. Rosik reported thatDbn Nbr;IIe-bf-Nor;II-Ins;rance-Ag;ncy-advIsed-her that he had turned theelection claim over to his attorney for his review. He also suggested thatthe Board discuss the matter with Warren A. McMinimee.

UNSCHEDULED: EXECUTION OF LETTER TO GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION REGARDINGPARTIAL RELEASE-OP-REAL-PROPERTY:--The-lette;-was~-the-atten tion-;I-KennethE~~Lindeba~-nIrector-o~Real-PropertyDivision, General Services Administra­tion and was in the form of a request for a partial release for the realproperty described in an attachment to the letter.

After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Woodwardapprove and sign the letter to the General Services Administration.was seconded by Commissioner Williams and carried with Commissionersand Woodward voting aye.

RECESS WAS CALLED BETWEEN 11:28 a.m. and 1:35 p.m.

toThe motiorWilliams

TIl.LAMOOKCOUNTYBOARD -OF -COMMTSS IONER-SMEETI-NG MTN-UT-ES·Friday, April 30, 1982

- -P-age.-3

Mr. Pease showed where the portion proposed for vacation was located ona map and explained that the road is not constructed·. He also showeda drawing done by M~. Urrey. The Road Department recommended that the20 foot accessl~ne not be vacated. He pointed out the road that theRoad Departmentrec6mmended be vacated. Mr. Pease_ stated that the appli­cants and adjacent owners have been notified properly and have copiesof the Road Department report which he read.

Because of the need to retain a dtainage way, the Roadmaster asked thatth e appl i can t s exch a nge road r ight-o f -way s wi th the Coun ty. He thenpointed out the portion of the easement and the extension,of the 20 footaccess lane. which the ,County is,r~questing the applicants dedicate.

Accor~ing to Mr. Pease, the property was posted,' there were two public­cations and certified l~tters were sent to b6th adjoininE land owners.

Mrs. Fahej~ adjoining land owner stated th~t she ~nd her husband have noobjections as long as acess was provided them.

Discussion was held regarding the location of a spring on th~ access andthat Mrs. Fahey's property ~as unde~eloped. Discussion was also heldregarding the properties being in an illegal subdivision.

A motion was made by Commissioner Woodward to accept' the recommendationof the Roadmaster on the ~acation of that portion of the road in theTrask River Subdivision. The motion was seconded'by Commissioner Williamsand carried with Commi'ssiorters Williams and Woodward voting aye:"

RECESS WAS CALLED BETWEEN 1:52 p.m. ~nd2:25 p.m.

UNSCHEDULED: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF DECLARING MAY9-rHRU-I5-TILLAMOO~COUNTY-HEALTH-WEEK:-YI;~ecraft-of-TITTa~ok-countyGene;a-1HospItaT-waspresent-.--A;QtIon was made by Commissioner Hoodward,to approve and ~ign a Resolution i~ the Matter of Declaring May 9 thru 15,1982 as Tillamdok County Health Week and Recognizing May 9 thru 15, 1982as National Hospital Week. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion,.,hich carried~ith Commissioners William.s and WoodHardvoting aye.

CON~INUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 16, 1982:CONSIPERArION OF PETI­TION-TO-ANNEX-TERRITORY-To-THE NETARTS-WATER-nISTRICT:--Pe~sons-p~esen~

wh~--sTgnedthe-gueStTT;t-were-Paul-H-:--Baughman-;-KatherineM. Baughman,Toni K.Niemi, "A.H. Niemi,Bernie C. Hughey, Marjorie L. Waggoner, GeorgeL. Waggoner, Don and Ruth Schaefer,'Ray and Dorothy Woods, John Gerke,Dona M. Morley, Joe Jeffers~n, John Tuthill, Jack H. Bausili, D.K. Kilgore,Hazel A. Kilgore, Tula Mae Davies, 'Marjorie Sidman, Rebecca Millspaugh,Austin H. Millspaugh, Mrs. F.P. Schuster, M. Ch~m, Neal' C. Lemery, VeraSnow Reid, K.P. Hill, Mildred Edner, Mary J. Groshong, Esther Grant, LarryReid, Ralph Gerards, Lela Gerards, E.J. Heesacker, Betty Larts, Wilma Fish,Marina Durbinj Ros~mary S. Heesacker, Betty Hill', Betty Bober~ Rexie Laurs,Ed Laurs, Robert Pearce, John and Naomi Giles, Jean White, Pete White,

Page 4TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 3D, 1982

Lillian (illegible), Henry Stange, R. G. (illegible), Ken Gerber, Maye PaynterBetty Taylor, RuthReyno1ds,W.A. Samuelson, Clifford Loudon, Percy Symons,David Eisen, Delores (no last name), Gordon Childs, Virgil Panison, Michar' f ..Burke, Mary E. Stowers,'Grace Ogborn, David Ogborn, Chuck Kingston, John \ ,Griffith. ·Wesley L. Gilbreth, Kenneth A. Voges, Herbert E. Gordon, Dan (illeg­ihl~), R. E. Azure, Warren Youker, Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Elliott, Jack N. Orr,Al Kofoed, Fred Braun, Jr., Ron and Paula Redmar, Skip Hill, C.A. McAlister.RCibert and Mary Gepford, Mary Gepford, Edna Drake, Ted Ft-entress, W;allaceDe~oer, Roland Haertl, Paul Astleford, Richard Astleford, and (illegible) Cook

Persons who signed the speakers list were Neal C. Lemery, A.M. Klein, KennethP. Hill, Mildred Edner, Mary J. Groshong, Esther 'Grant, Cecil Carden, JoeVentrella, Stephen Janik, Frank Piacentini, Ed Heesacker, Ed Laurs, Ro~~rt

P~arce, Jean White, Betty Taylor, MayePaynter, La Rue Smith Alfred Davies,Joe Reynolds, Paul Baughman, Clare H. Edner, Wayne Glenn, Edgar ~nd EdithPruitt,' J.ohn Tuthill, D. K. Kilgore, Liz Millspaugh, Dave Eisen,. and DeloresEisen.

Vice Chairwoman Williams reviewed the rules of procedure and stated that th~

only matter of discussion would be the proposed annexation of the Capesproperty into' the Netarts Water District, that attorneys would be allowed15 to 20 minutes to present new information, that Mr. Klein would have timeto explain his report, and that all others would be allowed 5 minutes fornew information only.

It was noted that additional documentation had been received since the April16, 1982 hearing and included a letter from Jean White, a letter from NealLemery advising that he is the new attorney for the Netarts Water District .a lega~ notice by the executive/recording secretary, and affidavit of (posting sent by Geo~ge Winslow, ~r. and received on April 26, 1982, theKlein Report. Mr. Tuthill stated that he had also received a copy of theKl~in Report on April 26, 1982 at 11:00 a.m. Mr. Janik stated that he, too,had received a copy of the Klein Report.

'the first speaker was Neal C. Lemery, attorney for the Netarts Water Distr.ict.Mr. Lemery submitted a Memorandum of the District in Aid of Hearing. He hassubmitted a copy to Mr. John Tuthill, attorney for the Oceanside Water Dist­rict and Mr. Steven Janik of the Capes Development. He also submitted amap of the area and stated that the shaded ar~a indicat~sthe area that isnow a part of the district and the "island of territory" ne,xt to the oceanis the area in question.

Mr. Lemery stated that the Netarts Water District filed a petition to annex,they desire to serve the Capes area, it is the most logical entity in thearea to serve the development. !e noted that a part of the Capes develop­ment property is now served by the District. He pointed out that an engineer­ing report had been received from Andy Klein, the Boar.d of Directors havereviewed the report, but have not yet adopted it.

The report indicates there is more than an adequate amount of water to servethe existing users and the area proposed for annexation. The present use ofwater in the district is only 29% of its capabilities of the district. .

He then stated that the Land Use Go~ls and Guidelines of the State applyto this decision and also the 1981 Oregon Drinking Water Quality Water Actapplies. Tl-e new rules and regula.tions of the State Health Division apply.The Water Quality Act provides that the district and the Health Divisionwork closely together in providing for service in the present district and

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD -OF-COMMTSSTONERSMEt:TING HINUTESFriday, April 30, 1982

in any new con~t~uction that applies. The new rules and statutes requirethat there be a very elaborate engineer's ~onstruction plan establishedfor any new construction. This has to be approved by the district and itsengineers as well as the Health Division, and before any construction canbegin the Commissioners have to certify that the Health Division has ap­proved that plan before any building permit can be issued. There mustalso be an engineered installation plan established prior to water servicehook-up and a master plan is required which could be analogized to theComprehensive Land Use Plan. It is an approximately 20-year plan forimprovements the district is going to make. The District Board is now~ooking at a proposed master plan which has been provided by their engin­eer.

Mr. Lemery stated that what the Board is considering today is essentiallythe first step in a long series of steps that need to be made before anydevelopment of the Capes can begin. The issue, according to Mr. Lemery~

is whether the Board wants the Netarts Water District to serve the Capes.

The statutes and rules that researched which govern the decision makingprocess are that the annexation be a logical step, that it benefit thecommunity and that it be an orderly transition from iural areas to anurbanized area. After a decision is made as to who is going to serve thearea the district and the contractor must come to an agreement regardingwhat type of services'will be provided and who will bear the cost of con­struction. The usual practice in Oregon is that the developer pays allthe costs. .

Accordirig to Mr. Lemery, the district has. been negotiating with the Capes"Development Company, but have not come to an ~gr~emerit because the Boarddoesn't want to get involved in litigation an~ cause a great deal of costto th~ patrons. He stated that the district is interested in the area,otherwi.se they would not have filed the annexation petition. Mr. Lemeryasked to reserve the rem~inder of his time until after all the present-ations have been made.

Andy Klien, Klien Consulting Engineers" 1928 Council Street) Forest Grove,stated that on April 21, 1982 his company completed~a report for thedistrict which is basically a master plan for the s~bsequent developmentof water facilities for the district. :Eecause of the complexities ofthe report he stated he \vou1d only "touch the high p,oints" relative tothe area to the north which relates to 'the Capes area and relative to.the availability and quality of water.

The district is taking water from two sources, a sp~ing on Wes~ Fall Creekwhi~h supplies a 600, 000 gallon reservoir and a spring inside the districtboundary which supplies 70 gallons per minute. There is another resourc£on the East Fork of Fall Creek which can generate about 517,000 gallonsper day which gives a total of approximately 800,000 gal,lons pei day.

He pointed out On a map the location of the dis,trict, their water resources,and the general layout of the f~cilities and lines. The average dailydemand in the Netarts/Netarts ~ay Water system in 1979 was 170,000 gallonsper day, in 1980 it was 160,000 gallons per day and in. 1981 it wa~ 14,000 .gallon~ per day. He e~plained that the drop in water usage wa~ not dueto population, but instead 'to the. fact that the district had,. in the past

TILLAMQOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 30, 1982

Page 6

few years made a concerted effort to do correct water loss in their system.He then stated that the water resources the district is using at this timeit 620,000 gallons per' day and they have water rights currently in use for (~-.360,000 gallons per day. He feels the district is "in good shape ll as faras water resources is concerned.

Mr. Klein then stated that the district's facility basically was an impound­ing reservoir on West Fall Creek, water treatmertt plant capable of 180,00gallons per day, 600,000 reservoir, some 75~000 feet of distribution pipingranging in si~e from 1 inch up to 12 inches in diameter, and they have a pumpat· the spring which pumps to a 12,000 gallon tank.

The water at Fall Creek and the spring water is excellent and meets U.S.Environmental Protection Agency and Oregon Environmental Health Division.requirements in all respects. One exception to the excellent rating is somesodium in the spring water which is not a particular problem.

Mr. Klein explained that the water treatment facility does not necessarilymeet the requirements of the water needs. The facility will put out 180,000gallons of water per day, but it will not meet the needs of a heavy use period,such as occurs during the summer months. The district is implementing a pro­gram to take care of the water loss problem that exists by installing meters.They feel that once the user begin to pay their bills which are determined bymeter readings, that the treatment facility would no longer be marginal, butwould be sufficient for one to three years at its present capacity.

He stated that the 600,000 reservoir is adequate. The transmission mainsalso are adeq~ate, except at peak demand and could become a problem for I,.... ,fire fighting. ~

He then explained what the proposed improvement plans of the district were.The capital improvement program would include a $174,000.00 additioQ to th.etreatment plant and approximately $61,000 worth of pipeline. The 12,000gallon tank should be replace within a few years and a second pump at thespring is anticip*tid to replenish supplies in the reservoir in case of fire.Phase two of the program would include construction of a 300,000 gallon reser­voir which would cost approximately $265,000.00. Another part of the programwould be the installation of a 100,000 gallon tank at the south end of thedistrict (Netarts Bay Water District) and an intertie along Netarts Highwayfrom north to south.which should be done whether the two districts merge ornot.

John Tuthill, attorney representing Oceanside Water District, asked Mr. Kleinif the first part of the plan is to build the filtration plant.

Mr. Klein repQied that they are basing the capacity of the filtration planton the basis that the plant is rated at 125 gallons per minute. In answerto questions by Mr. Tuthill, Mr. Klein stated that the $174,000.00 expenseof the plant would be financed by a general bond issue. Their cash f10\" studiesare done on the basis of 12% interest. He stated that the added cost per userwould be approximately $3.56 per month or roughly $40.00 per year and is basedon an increase of hook-ups from 529 to 565.

Mr. Tuthill stated that if the morato~ium on buildingfactOr would not be a consideration and therefore theuser would be greater.

re!J1a-ined,. the growthadditional cost per

(

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 30, 1~82

.Page 7

Stan Vanderberg, association of Mr. Klein's, stated ~hat peak days in1980 and 1981 were 460,000 gallons per day and referred to table 6 OD·

page 19 of the Klein Report.. He also stated· that by. 1985 they anticipatethose peak day needs to drop to 280,000 gallons per day.

Mr. Kl~in stated that the .treatmentfacility does not need to supplytbe total 460,000 gallon peak day need as· a portion of the water comesfrom storage.

Mr. Tuthill asked Mr. Klein if it w~s true tbat whether or not the annex­ation was approved if it was.still a part of their master plan to imm~d­

iately construct the $174,000.bo treat~ent facility with a bond indebted­ness to each user of approxi~ately $40.00 per year. Mr. Klein repliedaffir~atively providing they use the bond issue financing. He then statedhe felt that if the financial part of th~plan were to be discussed prop­erly it should be d~ne with the district.

Discussion was then held between Mr. Klein,. Mr. Vanderberg and Mr. Tut~illregarding other alternatives. Mr •. Vanderber~sta·ted that other alterna­tives had been looked into regarding modification of the existing plantand found that it was ·not eCbnomical to do so, and that it was not feasibleto take the plant.off~lirie for that long a period.· He then explainedthrit for short periods of time the plant .can operate at up to 250 gallonsper minute under emergency conditions. .

Mr. Tuthill asked if Mr. Kl~in had look~d at Oceanside filtiation systemas an ~lternate and received a negativ~ reply. ·Mr .• Kl~in was not askedto do so by Netarts Water District.

f()·Mr. Kl~in stated that the anticipated revenue for the master plan phasesafter the initial treatment facility expenditure would come from. eitherrate increases or a tax levy. They·are recommending a system developmentcharge be implemented by· the district. Discussion was held regarding arate study and a $250.00 system development charge.

In answer toa question by~Mr. Tuthill, Mr. Klein stated that even ifthe 28 hook-upS to the north were not needed· a filtration plant wouldstill be neede4with the spring included. If the amount of hook-ups werereduced the l2~000 reservo{r would not ~e as necess~ry right now.

Mr. Vanderberg stated that It was true, but that he did n·ot think it \V'asthat significant.

Mr. Tuthill th~n asked Mr.~Kl~in if he had considered being able to con­solidate the three districis and using the availability of the filtrationsystem to the north t~at cin provide immediate filtered water to Netartsand thereby post~oning or ~ossibly ~liminating the need for a new filtra­tion system. and also rather than having a multiple tank in the area,having a single· tank that tould serve a wider range of area than its pres­ent use.

Mr. Klein stated that he had not been asked to consider it.

(0·\ ..

Mr. Lemery stated that the Netarts Water District has nev~r received anysort of engine~ring report on the Oceanside Water District and if theyha~e any proposals they should provide them.

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 30, 1982

Page 8

Mr.theandly.

Janik asked Mr. KI~~n if the district plugged all the leaks and meteredusers, would the district still only meet 83% of peak demand in 1990would become more defici~nt after that. Mr. Klein replied affirmati~ (

Mr. Janik then referred to page 54 of the Kl~in Report under Table 18 andasked where the Capes fit irito the figures as far as the increase in hook­ups per year~ Th~ district plans for 26 additional hook-ups per year andthe Capes plan calls for 50 h06k-ups per year.

Mr. Kl~in felt that it would take Capes two to three years to develop aph/3.se.

The matter of the collection of taxes by the district was discussed. Mr.Klein stated that thedistriet had a bond fund and a general fund. Mr.Kl~in explained the budget, tax and revenues. The plan does call for anincrease in taxes and the doubling of the user rates within a relativelyshort time.

Mr~ Jankik questioned the statement in the budget which said. that the dist­riGt had spent $5,800.00 to repair and replace pipes and Mr. Klein'!:, rec-·ommendation that they spend $15,000.00 per year thereafter for repair andreplacement of pipes. Mr. Klein explained that the funds would be usedfor equipment and pipe. The matter was discussed further.

Mr. Janik also questioned the loss of $6,000.00 by the district in 1981.

Mr. Kl~in explained that the County Treasurer simply wrote a check for .too much money. (

He then explained how he arrived at the estimated water storage size andstated that a portion of the 600,000 gallons was pumped.

Kenneth Hill requested that he be able to speak later.

Mildred Edner, Mary Groshong, Esther Grant,. Cecil Cardin and Joe Ventrellaall deferred to Mr. Edner.

Frank Pacientini, one of the partners in the Capes Development, .sta~ed thatthe he feels they have a fine plan and feel it would be a real asset tothe community. He then gave a summary.of the what the Capes had encounteredin attempting to obtain water from the Netarts Water District and of theirproposed agreement with Oceansid~ Water District. He stated they would liketo begin the proposed development in 1983. He also stateo they were notmade aware of the proposed annexation of their property.

Nr. Pacientini fe~lsit,::is '.'.unfair for their property to·be annexed ,,,hen theydo not know the terms and conditions or when the funds would be availableto pnt in the ,proposed improvements w~en they have the possibility to gettheir development started next year when there is water that is just being'''asted.'' He is very disappointed at the "smallness of what has transpiredover the last few months."

(

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 30, 1982

Page 9

Ed Heesacker yeilded his time to either Kenneth Hill Or John Tuthill.

R6bert Pearceyeilded his time to Clare Edner.

Jean White, Netarts Water District user, read·a. prepared statem~nt inopposition to the proposed annexation and gave the foliowing r~asons:

The District has three ~rainances in effect until July 2, 19~3, the lasta f \11 hie h \11' asp ass e don Mar c h 2, 1 9 8 2 whie11 d' e'cIa r e "there may not now e x ~

ist sufficient dOfuestic w~ter within the district to supply its inhabi­tants nor in the' future." They were asked to, cu,rtail vlater use lastyear. She questioned how the district could add 315 more users underthose circumstances. She stated there would be a cost to the districtof $440,000.00, said figure being obtained through attendance at oneof the district meetings. The proposed number of new connections per yearwill not substantially contribute to reduction of the indebtedness, ac­cordingto Mrs. White. Therefore, the payment of the $4~a,OOO.~O willfallon the users and p~op~rty owners in the form of fees and taxes.She co.ncluded by asking "Do we, need' this- do,we reall'y need the Capes? I donttthink so."

Ed Laurs deferred his time to Mr. Edner ~s did M&ye Paynter, LaRue Smith,Alfred Davis and Joe Reynolds.

Paul Baughman, Oceanside, asked why the Netarts Water District, befoienow, never attempted annexation, and if it was not worth annexing before,why is it so vitally important to do so nowT He inquired ~hy the districthad not considered annexation when the Capes Development Company firstapproached them for water, as they knew at the time that the property w~s

not 'l1'ithin the district. He also asked why annexation become an issuedbring the twelve months of the district's discu~sion with the Capespeopl~. He suggested that perhaps the district~s"'petition to annex wasdue to their realization they may lose a source of revenue to its close.neighbor who has found a way to furnish the Capes with water quickly andto provide a supply which could improve service and supply to u~erB bothwithin and outside the Netarts Water District. He then stated that theannexation proposal appears to him to be an attempt to force th~ CapesD~velopment into the Netarts Water District and get by force wh~t theydid not achieve by discussion or ordinance, to for~~ the Capes)' by law,

. to acciept whatever ~trictures the Netarts Water District might decideto impose, to force C~pes people, by legal means, to be subj~ct ·in thefuture to the capriciousness the district has shown in the past. He isagainst the annexation proposal and believes it should ~e looked at ob­jectionably and not emotionally and that the facts ~peak for themselves.He believes t4is annexation plus th~ reitrictive ordinances the"waterdistrict has promulgated are a positive hindrance to the growth and to.the economy of Tillamook County. 'He also believes the annexation andthe restrictiv~ ordinances should be dropped and that the developersshould be allowed to I'start spending their money in Tillamook County" now,not sometime in 1983 or 84 or 85 'or possibly never." Mr. Baughman sub"'"mitted his written statement

Clare Ed~er, Chairman Netarts Water District, stated that the master planhad been received and th~t gravity water can be made available to theCapes within weeks. He then urged t~e Commissioners to proceed with theannexation proceedings on the basi~ of the information within the engin­eering. study (Kl~:i:n Report).

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 30, 1982

Page 10

He mentioned a time schedule which had been given to him by Mr. Haertl andwhich began on August 20, 1980 and ran through September 1981. He thengave information that had been given at the April 16, 1982 meeting of the (.e.....Board of Commissioners and which is a part of the record. He submitted a '.packet of documents. Mr. Edner then stated that the district is preparedto give the Capes water for $61,000.00 to $62,000.00 with no bond indebted­ness or any other costs. He received permission from the Chair to hold therest of his time and speak later in the hearing.

RECESSED FROM 4:00 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.

D.K. Kilgore submitted a document for the record.

Wayne Glen deferred to Clare Edner.

Edgar and Edith Prueitt were not present when called to speak.

Liz Milspaugh deferred to Clare Edner of the Netarts Water District attorney,Neal Lemery.

S.H. Milspaugh, David Eisen and Delores Eisen deferred toClare Edner.

Steven Janik stated that Mr. Edner has indicated the water which could bemade available to the Capes was gravity flow. Mr. Klien pointed out therewould be substantially more pumping than was indicated in Mr. Ednerfs testi­mony. Mr. Janik thinks that it is optomistic beyond the point of reality Ifor Mr. Edner to state that if the Capes would only write a check they ~c'Quld supply water within a matter of weeks to the development. Therewould neither be water in suffici~nt quantity nor would it be fair to theentirety of the system which would be overburdened without the future cap­ital improvements as outlined in the master plan, and which total over$700,000.00 in cost. Mr. Janik does not want to accept the offer as itwouldn't be right.

In response to Mr. Edner's statement that Capes had contacted OceansideWater District while still negotiating with the Netarts Water District, hereplied "that is certainly correct and the essence of that contact was tobrief them in response to their inquiry on the status of our negotiationsand we therafter continued to work with Mr. Edner and N~tart£. It was madeali ttl e bit d iff i c u 1 t' tow 0 r k wi t h t h em wh en we we r e to 1 d by 1 e t t e r d at e dAugust 6, 1981 by Mr. Winslow that the Board will not consider this matterfor another 90 days. It is hard to talk to someone under those circum­stances."

lie introduced a number of items of correspondence and focused on one inparticular which was written by hi~ to Mr. Winslow under date of December 22,1980. The letter outlined aspects of the annexation that would be requiredand it is captioned 'Annexation of'the Capes Property'. the Capes did re­quest annexation at that time and were told in March of 1981 that the dist­trict did not have adequate capacity to serve and could not be annexed. Nophysical changes have occurred in the district since then that would changethe a~ount of water to bring it to a point where they can be serviced.

Mr. Janik stated that Mr. Edner indicated that all the Capes asked was thathe "sign a blank check". They have not and would not ask that. Mr. Edner

TILLAHOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. 1-fEETING MINUTESFriday, April ~O, 1982

Page 11

.

t ( ..\ .I

((J

( ('~. ). "-J

stated we would "pay our share, but then the fine print took it away".Mr. Janik then quoted portions of a letter from Mr. Winslow to himunder date of March 4, 1981.

He the n sumrna r i zed the K1e i n Rep 0 r t by s ·ta tin g . "Ne tar t sis a dis tr :i. c tthat, because of leaks,. which they are in the process of trying tosolv~, consumes substan~ially more water per capita than other~. Itis ~ district that r think has· some difficult financial problems. It isdistrict whose engineer has indicated they must make immediate improve­ment in theif treatm~nt capacity and it .. i~ a 'district th~t, if it isgoing to accomodate the growth needs of its area, it will hav~ to spendabout $700,000.00 in the future without any :spe~ific explanation as towhere that $700,000.00 is going to come fro~.. The. specific plan saysput a tank at the very same location that we are willing to put a tankon, the very same spot. The only difference is our tank is going to bebigger because we beleive that for the sake of the long range growthof the entire. community, not just the community south of Fall Creek,but the entire community, a l~rger tank·iswarranted." He then statedthat the implication .of the report (Klein) is that there will be sub-stantial cost possibly paid .for·by bonding, se~vices fe~s will doublewithin four or five y~ars, sy~tem development chaiges will be chargedto all people in the district and not just to Capes.'

What the Capes is proposing in contrast is .quite simple, according toMr. Janik, and that proposal'is that they have no desire, and ·are unwill­ing to engage in any water improvement program.that will cost people whoare existing water users to pay more. He f~els that the Klein Reportwill force the Capes to cause cost to th~ users. What they want to do isbuilda' 600,000 gallon tank at their expense, to put in the necessary'lines to tie in w\:ith Oceanside (Water District), to .receive reimbursementfrom Oceanside to the extent that the tank is.siied larger than the Capesneeds, at· the request of Oceanside and to receive credit for hook-up feesthat they would otherwise pay. He then stated they respectfully request

.the Board of Commissioners to see the p~oposal for what· it is.:.~ flip­flop. Two years ago there was noteno~gh water to annex the Capes andnow it is a dire emergency that they be\annexed and tha price of annex­ation be the improvement of the capital.:systems of the district and thatt hat c h a r g e b e b 0 r neb y t 11 em and the e x:i s tin g wa t e r use r s .

He then pointed out that they believe the annexation petition is improperbecause Netarts, by its own ordinance, prohibited such annexations for'a time that has not yet lapsed~

Mr. Janik advised that an oplnl0n lette~ from their counsel to the CountyCounsel explainin~ why the) believe the petition is defective.

Commissioner Woodward asked Neal Lemeri to respond to the ordinance. ques­tion just raised.

Mr. Lemery stated that he h~d only been. the District's att~rney for aperiod of ten days. He asked that he be allowed to review the letter andmake a written resonse to the Board.

In response to a question by C~mmissioner Woodward, Cla~e Edner repliedthat the reason he stated the Ordinances could be "wiped out" is that ifthere was a merger between Netarts Water District and'Netarts Bay WaterDi·strict. The merger would also do away with the morato~ium.

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 30, 1982

Page 12

Commissioner Woodward then stated that he had ~ot been aware that there wasother property (:nV'ned by persons other than the Capes '(V"hich was included, inthe pet i t ion t 0 ann ex, but t hat had not bee n dis c u sse d e i therat the £ irs ( (:,.,­part of the hearing on April 16~ 1982 or at this hearing. He asked Mr.Edner why it had not been discussed. .

Mr. Edner stated that he ~adn't mentioned it because he feels there is aconflict of interest to some of the owners of that property and the attorneysthat are acting on it at this time.

Commissioner Woodward asked Mr. Edner to clarify his stetement.

He stated that back in the 1970's ju~t before the Clean Wat~r Act, thatproperty was owned by Several people, C. Ray Johnson,Sorenseti, Underwoodor Underhill and Chet Hawkins. He believes there is a conflict becauseDave Rantke works for Netarts Bay Water Dist~ict and Mr. Tuthill works forOceanside Water District and t~ey are all of the C. Ray Johnson office.

Mi. Tuthill responded by saying that it was true that Mr. Johnson was anowner at one time, but is not now an owner and has not been for many years.If his law firm was prohibited from dealing with any subsequent otmer ofany property because anj member of his law firm or any other firm, theymight no~ be ~ble to handle anybody's problems. He cautioned Mr. Ednerthat he needed to be careful what he was saying in a public meeting ifhe thinks there is a conflict, and that if he willing to stand by hisstatement then Mr. Tuthill and his firm are willing to respond. Ther~ isno conflict when no member of their firm is a land owner of that propertywhich is beingdiscussed,and if there is information otherwise, it does (•... '.not exist in' the County records~ He stated as a fact that there are prop- .erty owners within the Avalon Subdivision that are considering petitioningfor annexation to Oceanside Water District.

Commissioner Woodward asked if any of the other property owners in the areaproposed for annexation would like to speak. He stated that the other ownerswere Mary Stowers and Hoaglin's.

Mr. Janik stated that the Capes had entered into a joint venture with Mr.Hoaglin and when they speak for themselves it includes Mr. Hoaglin's parcel.He offered to have Mr. Hoaglin verify in writing.

Commissioner Woodward state~ he had not had time to completely review theKlien Report, but because he served on a water commission he basicallyunderstood the report. He asked Mr. Edner if he knew of any payment in lieuof back taxes that the District would be asking from the Capes property afterthe annexation.

Mr. Edner said they were standing on the Master Plan and that the $700,000.00was projected over many years,in the future. He stated that the Capes firstrequest was for 115 hook-~ps, but they had pared that figure down to between50 and - 60 ho ok-up s '- and th a t in Mar ch 0 f 1980 the district did not have a master plan.He also mentioned that the OAR 333-42 just became effective in February of1982.

(

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 30,.1982

Page 11

Commissioner Woodward then stated that during the April 16, 1982 hearin~,

the District stated several times that the District could annex the Capes.and they could. dD so under certain conditio~s. The terminology botheredCommissioner Woodward and he asked for an explanation.

Mr. Jan i 1<. res p 0 n d edthat the :t·s a 1, , 'e $ ta 1: e: t a xes' are p aid cur r en t 1 y."The Netarts Water District proposed an ordinance that was not adovted.The 0 'r din an c e was pro po sed when the Cap e sand the, :Dis t ric t C. 0 u ld' 1'10 t rea c 11an agreement. The ordinance said that to even seek the permission toann ex, the Cap e s w0 u 1 d h a vet 0 pay los t rev e n u e sand t axe s from a d. ate:beginning in 1964.

Commissioner Woodward stated that he understood the payment requirementwas proposed and wondered if that condition had changed. He then in­quired of Clare Edner exactly what the district would require the Capesto pay.

Hr. Edner replied the district .. "would go on the Engineer's recommendationthat $250.00 ... (Mr. Edner did not complete his thought). He then statedthat the plan had not been officially adopted, but they would probablycharge the Capes a $250.00 capital improvement charge to raise money. tooffset those unpaid taxes an~ other unpaid fee~ since 1938. '

Commis'sioner Woodward then'stated that the Kl~in R~p~rt was a nice'reportbut it had not been adopted and the Board of Commissioners will have to .take some time in :considering the petition.

Mr. Kenneth Hill, Oceanside Water District Chairmati, read and submitteda letter in strong opposition.

John Tuthill, attorney representing O~eanside Water District, statedthe Master Plan is for a 20 year period"but the need in Netarts WaterDistrict is for today and the Klerrn recommendation the construction of a' .treatment pl~nt costing .$174,000.00. I~,1983 is phase one constructionwhich is the piping at a 1982 cost of $61,000.00 plus or minus. In 1984is construction of,phase two which is a high service area~ proposed tankand piping which is $264,000.00 and in 1985 the 100,000 gallon tank tothe south. In 1986 the inter-tie is to be constructed along NetartsHighway. The total amount as recom~ended in the Klein report' is in ex~

cess of $700,000.00. He contended that the people will pa~ in increasedfees and increase~ taxes,;which'~wi1~,~mount to $40.00 minimum' per user peryear ..

He than stated that there is a reasonable, satisfactorj, less expensivealternative tha~ because of th~ directions of the Netarts Water District,the developer~ of this ~lan were nqt told, nor directed, nor involved withthe district to the north. Mr. Klein was limited in his study to theN~tarts Water 'and Netarts Bay Water districts. He then stated there issome 100,000 gallons of pDtable water available to Netarts Water Districtat this time' if there was an inter-tie between the districts. Accordingto Mr. Tuthill, the Klein Report left out the financial plan and Hr. Kleinstated previou~ly that there would have to be another rep~rt. Mr. Tuthillwent on to explain that there was no definite financial plan for' the pay­mentof the, improvements to the Netarts'Water District and that the dist­rict, is asking for an anriexation of the development withdut kn~wing thecosel

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTESFriday, April 30, 1982

Page 14

He then stated that the Board of Commissioners needed to consider what is inthe best interest of the distri~ts and in the b~st interest of the propertvo\V'ner for annexation. He also stated that lIif a property o\V'ner is kicking( ("and screaming not to go in, I think that is a very loud and strong message "'to this Board that they're not ready for it, they don't want it and to saythat you're going to have it after this length of time. it seems to be in~

appropriate. t1

Neal Lemery, attorney representing the Netarts Water District, stated that"It I S interesting_ that Mr. Tuthill is referring mainly to the concerns .. andhe says that Netarts Water Distric~ can't supply the needs. He talks aboutthe fact that some of the water in the Netarts District is pumped: .. lOO%of the water in Oceanside is pumped and there's no gravity water in Ocean­side." He then noted that there is no engineering report supplied by theOceanside Water District,and there are no facts and figures on costs for watersupply from that district saying how much it will cost them to supply waterto ·the Capes.

He then noted that right at the edge of the area they propose to annex thereare water mains which they could,with about $60,000.00, 'supply water to theCapes. According to Mr. Lemery, the nearest Oceanside \vater main is a.bouta miie away from the Capes property.

Mr. Lemery stated there are no figures to show if Oceanside has adequatewater now or in the future. He noted that because the Netarts Water Districtsurrounds the Capes development property an annexation petition would haveto be filed by Oceanside and it would "drag things out even longerf! and theywould h~ve to cross Netarts Water District area. He does not know of alaw that ~ould provide for itj and it would require that the Capes wouldneed to purchase the tank and lines from the Netarts Water District. Hesubmitted it would be more logical to annex to the Netarts Water District.

Mr. Edner asked that theJ.Board closely review the two proposals submitted by theCapes ,Development owners. He went over some of the previous testimony.

Mr. Janik then stated that the attorney from Netarts Water District, who hadnot been involved in the previous hearing, might want to check the record ofthe previous hearing where a number of the questions he just raised wereans\vered.

When asked by Commissioner Woodward if there had been any proposal made byOceanside to annex the ·Capes, Mr. Janik replied that a petition has beensigned, but not filed.

Paul Astleford, Oceansid~, asked if anyone from Avalon Water District broughtany information as to who built the system. He was advised it ~as not relevantto this hearing. He then stated that the original Oceanside Water Districtincluded all of the area under discussion. He went on to tell how the areawas excluded. Commissioner Williams then stated that the matter he wasdiscussing had no bearing on this annexation" petition.

Commissioner Williams then asked Mr. Lemery to provide his opinion on Ordin­ance #79-2 and #81-2 which denies .annexation to Netarts Water Districtuntil 1983. Mr. Lemery will submit"the opinion by Wednesday, May 5, 1982. (

TILLAMOOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINU~ES

Friday,. April 30, 1982Page 15

Commissioner Williams then stated that the interest of the County, sincethe Board was asked the question, is that the development is able to pro­ceed. The Board will not be able to reach a decision this date, but willtentatively set May 12, 1982 for the decision. She encouraged the peopleinvolved to work'out a solution prior to that time if at all possible.

She then elos.ed the hearing to testimony, ex~epting the opinion by Mr.Lemery and any further written testimony by John Tuthill.

,I,' The meeting was adjouned at 5:00 p.m.

APPROVED~ \-..., .' "

C;:~t::~~'"=~ .-:..:~~<.a-....=- _Car"ot'-vHlliams, Vice Chairperson

C/o 'l.;/..b~4!L&~~ _Gerald A. Woodward, Commissioner

(0