Gorge committee reviews Avarna economic recommendations, seeks deeper study of agricultural income test

The Columbia River Gorge Commission's Economic Vitality Committee on July 1 reviewed a package of recommendations from the Avarna Group and directed staff to pursue more analysis of the commission's agricultural income test and how the commission's funds are deployed.

Chair Litware opened the meeting by asking the committee to consider a subset of Avarna's findings focused on economic vitality and to identify two or three priority issues. Christina, commission staff, summarized five observations in the Avarna excerpts: the economic vitality work group is a bright spot; the commission's revolving loan fund for small business is an innovative tool; some management-plan rules feel restrictive to landowners; limits on agritourism, accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals constrain potential uses; and members flagged concerns about gentrification and high-value land purchases excluding current residents.

Committee members generally agreed the themes reflected work the group has discussed and emphasized the need to clarify what the commission can and cannot regulate. "There's a lot there," one member said, urging clearer communications so the public and new commissioners understand the National Scenic Area's limits and authorities. Members proposed that the communications committee amplify success stories and prepare visuals that map partners, jurisdictions and funding flows.

The committee discussed a proposed review of how the commission has supported economic development, including a referenced business loan program. "Example, given the $10,000,000 business loan program via the investment boards," a commissioner observed, and others recommended creating a policy rubric and measurable objectives so future deployments of funds can be evaluated against agreed goals.

Public comment underscored the need for plain-language explanations and graphics. Lynn Burdette, a member of the public who spoke during the meeting, urged the commission to show distinctions among special management areas, general management areas and urban areas so stakeholders better understand which policies apply where.

Staff provided a detailed recap of the agricultural income test and its history. According to staff, the test was originally set at $40,000 in the 2004 management plan and was raised to $80,000 in 2020 to align with an Oregon standard; the figure refers to gross agricultural income, not net profit. Staff said the test aims to preserve farmland for farming by demonstrating that a parcel is actively productive before allowing a residence that would significantly increase market value. Staff and commissioners agreed that more data are needed, including parcel-size differentiation (for example, whether an $80,000 threshold is appropriate for a 20-acre parcel versus a 160-acre parcel) and an inventory of active versus inactive farmland.

Members agreed there was not sufficient time or attendance to conclude policy changes at the meeting. Instead, the committee asked staff to prepare further analysis, to consult with partner bodies that help administer funds (including the Oregon and Washington investment boards and local development councils), and to bring refined recommendations and visual materials back to the committee. Committee members also discussed timing and coordination with the broader SEDS (comprehensive economic development strategy) updates and the five-year economic vitality report that must be reviewed by the bi-state advisory committee and then submitted to the states.

Procedurally, the committee approved the minutes from its previous meeting by voice vote; the motion to approve was moved, seconded, and recorded as carried. No formal policy changes or votes on the agricultural income test were taken. The committee concluded by scheduling follow-up work and inviting additional stakeholder input and farmer participation in the deeper review process.