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