1992-04983-Minutes for Meeting January 22,1992 Recorded 1/27/199292-04953 0108 MINUTES 1.50 SUNRIVER INCORPORATION 92 L? Y V, 3: 13 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS January 22, 1992 i _ -k -, }iNl +s Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at ,11:09f,,a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throdg anif?�e> ancy Pope Schlangen. Also present was Rick Isham, County C+�ure MAUDLIN: This meeting was called for a decision onr)t-11,4,.,Su%rAver Incorporation. We have.. I would like to call to yoe:fion those boxes and letters and etc. over there are the co*ri tJ,t \:,file if anybody is interested in going through this once again. We all have copies of the letters, we also have copies of what has been passed out. It's been fairly complete and what I consider to be a very accurate file and has been brought to us. So at this time, the issue is whether the incorporation of Sunriver shall be allowed by the Deschutes County Commissioners or a petition to incorporate. So if anyone would like to begin. I have before us a sample resolution, and I'll just briefly run through this. It's my opinion that this petition should not be approved as submitted. There is some difference in opinion among the commissioners I believe regarding the lands that, if there was an approval later or in the future, that should be added to the incorporation area. It's my opinion that if, in the future, that another petition came back, that at least the minimum would be the 600 acres to the south should be added to the incorporation boundary. I don't feel that the tax base proposed by the petitioners was adequate to give enough information to really let people know exactly what they would be voting on. That was the one area that struck me the most and the reason why I do not think that this petition should be approved. I think we would have a problem with what is public facilities and services and how they would be provided. I have a concern with that. I think that I got a definite feeling that the petitioners felt that they could have these public services and maintain them as private services, or private property, and I don't think that can be done. So those are the ... as far as applicable statewide planning goals are concerned, I think that those things are probably best left to the experts rather than someone like myself because that is an area that I think needs to be addressed by, perhaps could better be addressed by, our staff rather than my trying to give my opinion on it. SCHLANGEN: Mr. Chair. MAUDLIN: Commissioner Schlangen. SCHLANGEN: I had some of the concerns that you did concerning the 600 acres being included if we accept a petition, concern for the lack of an ad valorem tax, a great concern about public/private PAGE 1 MINUTES: 1/22/92 K ` �c KEYP#HED !BAR FEB 21 1992 0108 1151 lands. I don't quite see how they can stop traffic on their bike paths now if they have an open public city and anybody can come into the city, and other concerns about public access. The goals that you didn't wish to address, I like you am not an expert in all of them, but I have several concerns. One of the greatest is with goal #10, the housing diversity and price levels. I feel with the CC&Rs that are in place now, with the lack of land for availability, that this goal certainly could not be met. I think that is one of the ... I'm concerned the goal 11 public facilities and the economic development #9. I don't see where commercial and industrial are going to fit in the plan as stated. MAUDLIN: I had a question and perhaps one of you can answer this for me. I have a concern with CC&Rs and then incorporating a city, what happens to the CC&Rs? ISHAM: Generally, CC&Rs are considered contractual and subsequent legislation by a City Council can't impair the obligations in the contract, except that under certain circumstances, it is possible where you have a CC&R that's unlawful, and I'll give you a real easy one. Let's say you have a CC&R that prohibits orientals from voting in a City election or something like that or owning property in the City, obviously that would be unlawful and against public policy type of covenant and it would be stricken down by a court. But it's not a simple situation where a city can pass a ordinance and undo that contractual relationship that was established at the time the CC&R was filed and the property was purchased. SCHLANGEN: I had another question for Rick. The County, on the planning part, the County would, until four years, would do the plan. I have a letter that came from LCDC saying that our comp plan, maybe I didn't understand it, is the current County plan for Sunriver would not apply with their requirements. I don't quite understand that. Here I'll pass you a copy of this. It's underlined and starts on the other page but it's that dark underlined. I wanted to know if you could .... what that means. What's the difference between it being a city or an unincorporated area as far as we, as a County, are concerned with planning. ISHAM: Let me read this for a second. THROOP: Let me go ahead and state my view. ISHAM: I didn't get a copy of this so I ...... THROOP: Mr. Chair let me go ahead and state my thoughts on this. I guess there are two questions and one is should we add property to the boundary, and second should we approve the petition and allow it to move to a vote. And that first question about adding properties to the boundary, I think it's a close call and there are strong arguments on both sides, so I would error on the side of petitioners and keep the boundary as it is and not include any PAGE 2 MINUTES: 1/22/92 0108 11-52 additional properties at this time. Secondly, on the question of incorporation, I'm not personally opposed or I don't believe the County is opposed to incorporation, it's that this entity has the legal responsibility to make sure the petition conforms with state law, and that we as county commissioners and we as the County government also has the ethical and moral responsibility to make certain that if there is a change in governance, that that change in governance meets the needs of the proposed city and its citizens. And I think in neither case does this petition. meet either of those standards, and I think that a petition. I personally believe that a petition of this nature can be approved or could potentially be approved, but the petitions, in my opinion with all of the information that was presented, clearly did not meet their burden of proof. And I think it's obvious to all of us that we do have evidence which conflicts, and I believe, looking at it from my position, my point of view, that we need or I need to make this decision based on the most credible evidence that was presented, and I think the evidence with the most credibility indicates that this petition has not met the burden of proof. I also have some concerns that this petition and this package is.. could have difficulty complying with some of the statewide planning goals and would concur with Commissioner Schlangen, and I would point to goal 2 and the potential insufficiency of what may be a comprehensive plan that would come out of this process if in fact this package was approved at the ballot. Second, concur with Commissioner Schlangen that goal 10, housing, may be a problem to meet. Goal 11 public facilities and services may be a problem to meet and then goal 14, urbanization which deals with urban growth boundaries could have difficulty being met as well. I guess again from my own personal point of view, I would like to see, and when I say personal point of view, I mean as one of three decision makers, not speaking on behalf of the County but speaking as one of three decision makers for the County at this point, I would like to see the Sunriver community consider and work toward developing a legally sufficient alternative to the community association form of governance and then give the people down there a valid alternative, but this clearly isn't the proposal. And I think the areas where its deficient are in the economic feasibility statement. It does not do an adequate job of providing the range of services that the city and its citizenry will require in the future. It doesn't propose a budget that's adequate to provide these services, and it doesn't propose a funding mechanism to provide these services. So with that I would, much as Commissioner Maudlin stated, support denying the petition as submitted. SCHLANGEN: I'm concerned about the SROA providing services to like the commercial areas, parts that are not in the 85% that don't live there have a vote for SROA. Would they want to vote for services to be provided...fire and police and what not. I have a great many concerns that I think, as Tom said, could be addressed. MAUDLIN: Rick, do you have anything you wanted to add on that? PAGE 3 MINUTES: 1/22/92 0108 1153 ISHAM: I think an answer to Nancy's question, basically, as I read it, that the comments from DCLD concur with those from J. David Bennett, although I think maybe Mr. Bennett said it a little more clearly, basically that the City couldn't be sheltered from complying with their goals' requirements within that four-year period for adoption of a comprehensive plan, and at the same time, in order to be goal compliant, the County, if the City were to incorporate, would also have to amend its comprehensive plan within that period. So there would be a process where both..if the petition were approved and there was a vote to incorporate the city, then within that four-year period, both the city and the county would have to adopt. The County would have to amend its comprehensive plan, the City would have to adopt a comprehensive plan, comply with those goal requirements. SCHLANGEN: Thank you. MAUDLIN: I want to be sure that the petitioners understand my concern on this thing. The main basis for this thing is I don't believe that you could adequately inform the people of the financial burden and what it would be under the existing petition that was filed and the tax base at zero. There was enough information and enough testimony filed that to me left that very, very unclear. And I stated once before that at this time, I represent those people, and I think that they would be better served if the petitioners came up with a tax base that truly showed what the costs could be. If there is anything further, I would entertain a motion. THROOP: Mr. Chair. MAUDLIN: Commissioner Throop. THROOP: I'll move that the Board adopt Resolution 92-003 and that would include no's on the items 1-8 listed with the exception of number 2 which should be yes, and then also direct staff to prepare the findings and decision document to implement the tentative decision that would be reflected with the adoption of this resolution and to incorporate the comments made by the Board in crafting this final solution for our signature. SCHLANGEN: Second. MAUDLIN: It's been moved and seconded. For purposes of what this says, I will read these. They are very brief. Item one, Commissioner Throop's motion is that items 1-8, one, three, four, five, six, and seven be marked no and item number two marked yes. Item one says: :'Should the petition be approved as submitted?" No. "Should the petition be denied?" Yes. "Should the petition be approved but modified to include additional territory?" No. "Should the petition be approved but modified to exclude territory within the boundaries as originally proposed?" No. "If the PAGE 4 MINUTES: 1/22/92 A r 0108 1154 petition should be approved with modifications, what modifications should be made?" That was a map No. and that has been answered "no" previously. "Is the tax base proposed by the petition adequate under the circumstances?" No. "Have petitioners demonstrated that adequate public facilities and services will be provided?" No. "Have petitioners demonstrated that it is likely that the proposed city will comply with applicable statewide planning goals?" No. Further discussion? SCHLANGEN: Call for the question. MAUDLIN: Question's been called for. Commissioner Schlangen? SCHLANGEN: Aye. MAUDLIN: Commissioner Throop? THROOP: Aye. MAUDLIN: Chair votes aye, so ordered. DATED this llyp�day of Commissioners of Deschutes Co ty, Org E T: ecording Secretary PAGE 5 MINUTES: 1/22/92 Tom Thank you all very much. , 1992, by the Board of Commissioner Nancy Po a Schlangen, Commissioner i Mau in, 'C16irman