Loading...
2000-110-Minutes for Meeting February 17,2000 Recorded 2/25/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 110 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02000-110 *Vol-Pagc Printed: 03/07/2000 08:01:35 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Feb. 25, 2000; 10:04 a.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 21 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KEY. N HED SIA - 2000 01 SES Ce1�&h- //I)m�"Q, 2� Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 wwW.co.deschutes.orus Linda L. Swearingen X Tom DeWolf T Z5 ,Dennis R. Luke C") < "+ i MINUTES r'_ ul a) C- —{ "1 C -n —r DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MFsE`PING t o THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 ' o 0 Vice Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Commissioners present were Dennis R. Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also present were George Read, Kevin Harrison and Chris Schmoyer, Deschutes County's Community Development Department; and Michael Maier, County Administrator. Also attending were Steve Wilson, the Mayor of Sisters; Steven Bryant, Attorney for the City of Sisters; Neil Thompson, Planner for the City of Sisters; Tim Clausen and other members of the Sisters City Council; and approximately twenty interested citizens. IIt8i114 We are here today because the City of Sisters has asked to meet with the County Commissioners. Since it may affect the Sisters land use decision that we're considering and the record is still open, this meeting will become a part of the record. The Mayor of Sisters, the Sisters City Council and their staff who wish to comment on the record will have an opportunity to do so today. Anyone else who wants to comment on the Sisters land use actions will need to do so in writing. KEVIN HARRISON: (Kevin Harrison of Deschutes County's Community Development Department) It's my understanding that we can take oral testimony from the City of Sisters today. Those who are present who would like to submit written testimony to comment on that can do so on or before Monday, February 28, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. Any rebuttal of the record can then be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 2, 2000. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting With Representatives of the City of Sisters Page 1 of 21 Thursday, February 17, 2000 Quality Services Performed with Pride DEWOLF: Written minutes of this meeting will be available as a part of the record within the next few days. STEVE WILSON: (Steve Wilson, the Mayor of Sisters) The full Council is here as well. Due to a scheduling conflict, we were unable to attend the recent meeting the Commissioners held at the Sisters Fire Hall, and wanted a chance to touch base and give the City's perspective on the two applications. We have had numerous meetings as the City Council, and want to make you aware of our perspective on this issue. From a historical perspective, we have incorporated the two applications in our proposed comprehensive plan update, which is nearing completion. These two parcels are vital from the perspective of meeting the State mandate to create a 20 - year inventory of available light industrial lands. Over the last two years we have had numerous occasions where we have publicly stated our support for the inclusion of these two parcels within the City as light industrial lands, and that hasn't changed to this date. In regard to the concerns raised by the Hearings Officer on the issue of compatibility, the City is pleased to see that the applicants are willing to make concessions to restrict the uses of their lands on the northern -most portions of their properties to accommodate their neighbors to the north. That was never an issue that we as a Council addressed. While we're sensitive and sympathetic with the people who have adjoining properties, we looked at it strictly from the possible inventory lands that we could include as light industrial in the comp plan update. Sisters historically has had very low impact type of allowed uses in our light industrial lands, and we just assumed that since it would be falling into our jurisdiction that our City restrictions would apply. DEWOLF: You mentioned the willingness of the applicants to restrict the use of the northern end of their properties. When asked specifically at the public hearing at the Fire Hall in Sisters, the Sisters School District indicated that it was willing to require a limitation of building within fifty feet of the northern property line, and a height restriction. However, the other applicant did not seem willing to make the same concessions to the neighbors. If something has changed, it would be good to get this information into the record. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 2 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 WILSON: Since I wasn't in attendance at that meeting, I cannot comment. I am going by the management agreement that the City and the two applicants have been working on to address the City's perspective of transportation mitigation and such. DEWOLF: From that perspective, yes. I was speaking specifically about the north end of the property, and those concessions offered by the School District but not offered by the other applicant. LUKE: There were suggestions made, but the whole thing would have to go through a site plan review when annexed into the City, and the City would have an opportunity to impose or negotiate certain restrictions on how the ground is developed. Even though someone might make a concession now, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to happen when the site plan review occurs. DEWOLF: If it was made a condition of approval here, I suspect it would carry through. M a A '4 We aren't doing conditions of approval. We are doing whether it goes into the Urban Growth Boundary. You do conditions of approval in the site plan review, on not moving it into the City limits or the UGB. HARRISON: I think the Mayor is referring to the fact that the City has been working with the two applicants to construct a development agreement. Although I'm not totally familiar with all aspects of the development agreement, I believe it is a binding agreement placed on both properties and subsequent property owners. These setbacks are mentioned in this development agreement. Although Commissioner DeWolf is right in terms of his recollection of the oral testimony at that hearing, there are things in the development agreement that go beyond that testimony. DEWOLF: But that is not a final document yet, or accepted by all parties. HARRISON: It is my understanding it is still a draft. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 3 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 DEWOLF: If we were to vote for approval of this, is it true we do not have the authority to place conditions on it that would carry forward? HARRISON: I believe that conditions in the development agreement can include conditions of approval. LUKE: That agreement is between the City of Sisters and the proposed developers. All the County is being asked to do is to allow the property to go into the UGB. How do you put restrictions on people by doing that? As soon as you move it into the UGB and it is annexed into the City, it becomes part of the City of Sisters. Even if an agreement exists between the County and the developers, the County no longer has jurisdiction as soon as the properties are annexed. HARRISON: This is a legal aspect that I can't answer. However, theoretically there are available mechanisms in place. One we have available to us is what is called a "resolution of attempt to rezone". That is a binding agreement between the County and the applicants, which would state that the County will affect the UGB amendment and zone changes when the development agreement is recorded. Once the development agreement is recorded, that becomes a binding agreement between the owners of the properties and the City. If the property is rezoned and the UGB is annexed, and the development agreement is signed and recorded, then the City has jurisdiction. They implement the development agreement in conjunction with the owners of the properties. WILSON: This management agreement is a three-way document, to be signed by the City of Sisters, Deschutes County and the applicants. HARRISON: Bruce White (Deschutes County Legal Counsel) is now reviewing that document, and will be able to provide more guidance on that component. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 4 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 WILSON: This agreement will follow the property as it moves from the County into the City. Under permitted uses, it does address the restrictions on the northern one- third of the properties regarding the compatibility issue. The City is more restrictive than the County in regard to light industrial uses. DEWOLF: When do you anticipate this will be finalized and signed? WILSON: Legal staff just has two minor amendments to make, and we anticipate we can adopt this as a City at our next Council meeting in a week if all parties agree. DEWOLF: If Deschutes County took issue on some of the items in the agreement and doesn't agree with all of it, what process gets followed? You have adopted something; but if we don't sign it, what happens? WILSON: Barring negative feedback from the County, once we know that all three players are satisfied that it addresses the two remaining issues brought up by the Hearings Officer, we'll adopt it. Since both legal staffs are working on this, we should have feedback before our next meeting whether it's a viable document. LUKE: I'm not sure that is true. Bruce White is not here today because he is before the Court of Appeals. For us to be able to have our staff review this and give the Commissioners feedback before your next Council meeting, I don't think this can happen so quickly. WILSON: We won't proceed until we know that we have a workable document. DEWOLF: Am I to assume that this is now part of the record? HARRISON: Yes, it is. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 5 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 LUKE: Yes. I have to make it clear that I have not come to any conclusion on how I am going to vote, because the record is not closed. I don't mind participating and having our staff participate in this agreement, but just because we consent to the agreement doesn't indicate how we are going to vote in any way. DEWOLF: I am going to need some legal advice, as this is very awkward. I have never faced anything like this before, where we're to consider information that is brought up at a public hearing, and the record is left open so there is some rebuttal time. Now we have a development agreement that assumes a particular result of this hearing, when we haven't made a decision based on what we've heard thus far. If we become parties to this agreement, that's definitely heading down a particular road. STEVEN BRYANT (Steven Bryant, Attorney for the City of Sisters) To clarify, the agreement has a condition in it that is tied to what you ultimately decide. If the County chooses not to make this change, then the agreement is voided. Entering into the agreement, assuming that the language is satisfactory to the County, does not necessarily mean that the County is bound to a particular result in the hearing process that you're working on right now. DEWOLF: Let's say I'm flat out on the fence, 50/50. I've visited the area, and it appears this is really close to the neighbors' back yards, particularly in relation to the northern portion of the properties. I have real concerns about the impact on the neighbors. However, on the other hand, this issue has been voted on by the people of Sisters for it to be part of the twenty-year inventory. What is it that is going to tip the scales for me? If I see enough to be satisfied that the neighbors will be a little more protected, that pushes me over on one side. If we can't come to an agreement, it pushes me to the other side. This becomes the deciding document here, and it seems odd to me that this would be introduced at this point. BRYANT: The purpose of the agreement is to alleviate the concerns of both the Commissioners, the City and the property owners, and, as part of this agreement, ODOT as well. This becomes a mechanism for imposing some of the criteria that you feel is necessary before you allow this change. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 6 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 DEWOLF: So this is the mechanism by which we can put restrictions on the development up front before a decision is made? BRYANT: Absolutely. If all parties agree to include certain provisions in the agreement, the provisions would ride with the properties as it transfers from the County into the UGB and ultimately into the City. Unless there was some change in this agreement... DEWOLF: All three parties? BRYANT: Probably not all three parties, since at that point the County would no longer be a player. DEWOLF: That's the problem. LUKE: The County's not a player anyway. Once it goes into City jurisdiction and there is a site plan review, the City has an opportunity to change the agreement. I'm not even sure why we are a party to this because we have no enforcement capabilities once it becomes part of the City. I don't believe the County should be able to tell the City what to do with their properties. BRYANT: There is no guarantee that it is going to come into the City. There's been a vote in Sisters to do the annexation, but it requires Council approval. LUKE: There was every indication given to the Commissioners at the last hearing in Sisters that if this was brought into the UGB, it would be annexed; a done deal. BRYANT: I believe that is correct with this Council; however, Councils change. The Council cannot promise that the annexation will occur if for some reason there is a change in the Council. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 7 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 LUKE: The problem you would then have is that if it is brought into the UGB and it's not annexed into the City, County industrial zoning applies. That allows a lot more development and different types of development than the City's zoning. Why bring this into the UGB if you aren't going to annex it? There are cities that have annexed property that was not in their UGB, such as West Salem and Eugene. I believe that you can annex property that is not in your UGB; the City Council could vote to annex this land, making things a lot simpler. It would then come in under the industrial zoning code of the City. BRYANT: You're raised a number of issues here. The County and the City of Sisters have an agreement dealing with development within the UGB, and the application of the Sisters zoning ordinance to properties within the Sisters UGB. Even though it's technically in the County, that property is handled under the Sisters zoning ordinance. HARRISON: I don't think so. LUKE: I don't believe so. BRYANT: If this hasn't been done, it is supposed to be in the works, since it was part of the agreement between the County and the City of Sisters. LUKE: Testimony on the record is that if that property gets moved into the UGB, it is under the County's industrial zoning. BRYANT: I would have to ask the City planner, as it is my understanding that there was to be a change in the applicable zoning standards within the UGB. LUKE: The County cannot impose City zoning on lands within the County; the County has to use County zoning. The County's industrial zoning allows asphalt plants and similar uses. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 8 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 BRYANT: There is a mechanism as part of the agreement that is meant to make that change. But even assuming that it comes within the UGB and you have concerns about that, the development agreement would deal with that. DEWOLF: But the development agreement is not enforceable by all three parties. Once the die is cast, it becomes a discussion between the City and the developers. LUKE: Only if the City annexes it. BRYANT: If it is within the UGB, then the County has the ability to enforce it. In terms of the annexation, in the past the City of Sisters did an annexation of property outside the UGB, and the State was not pleased with that process. It specifically asked the City not to do it again. The City agreed that it would not, and that it would follow the procedure the State suggested which was to change the UGB, have the property brought into the UGB, and then do the annexation. That's why we're handling it in this way. LUKE: The whole process is much simpler if you just annex it. BRYANT: I don't want the Commissioners to think that the City does not intend to do so, or that there is some secret plan not to annex the properties. But I do want to make sure that we're all clear that the Council cannot make a promise to annex. This Council and the City has every intention to annex this property, and it is in the best interest of the City to annex this property, and that's what we intend to happen. DEWOLF: I seem to remember that these actions are instantaneous, and happen together; and that it is not something that goes back before the Council. LUKE: Council has to approve it, by Ordinance. And they can't go forward with the process until they have control. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 9 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 DEWOLF: Can we condition that the City must annex the property? wlr4-9 I believe the only control the County has is that the request has been made to move this property into the Sisters UGB. If that happens, the County's zoning ordinance follows and stays on that property until it is annexed into the City of Sisters. Let's say that the Council decides not to annex. If someone came in with a site plan, the County would have to process that site plan under existing County zoning. The City of Sisters would be able to comment, and their comments are taken very seriously, but ultimately the decision is the County's. HARRISON: My understanding of the joint management agreement is that those properties inside the UGB but outside the City limits are subject to the County zoning ordinance, but applications are made to the City and processed by the City. We have transferred the authority to review land use permits inside the UGB to the City. DEWOLF: If in fact there is an outright use allowed under County zoning, the City would have no way to restrict this. Except, perhaps, under the development agreement. It can prohibit certain uses and limit the siting of certain uses. DEWOLF: My biggest concern is that I am being asked to make a decision, and the only thing I can go by is what I know for sure. There are a lot of "probablies" and "maybes". BRYANT: It sounds like one of the concerns is the application of the County zoning code to the property. The development agreement already provides that the uses are subject to Sisters' zoning code, so they would have to meet those requirements even if it was not annexed into the City. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 10 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 LUKE: Again, this is a development agreement that has not been signed, so it is still a maybe. BRYANT: That's true. WILSON: This is not an attempt to do an end run around the public process. The City is left with potentially conflicting outcomes where the law has mandated us to come up with a comp plan update. We're down to five acres of industrial land, which at our current absorption rate is less than a couple of years of build -out. We're trying to identify parcels of land that allow us to meet the necessary compliance to the law in our comp plan. We're sympathetic to the neighbors to the north, and we're trying to draft a document that allows the City, the County and the residents to address those concerns in a way that will also enable us to meet the burden of law as it relates to State land use planning. We're sitting here, open to the concerns that you have, and we'll continue to try to address those. If the applications are denied, we're left at square one. What is the point of coming up with a comp plan update where lands that are identified have no realistic ability to be incorporated into the real plan of the City? We are sympathetic to the neighbors, and we're drafting a workable agreement as quickly as we can. LUKE: Where are you on the comp plan update? WILSON: The draft has been submitted for County review. I believe it has been sent back with some concerns, which we have addressed. We're almost ready to resubmit it back to the County for further review. NEIL THOMPSON: (Neil Thompson, City of Sisters Planner) The DLCD has returned the plan, and it is almost done. There were four main areas of concern, and we feel we can address them. They revolved around population growth and its coordination with the County's numbers. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 11 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 WILSON: As it relates to the population numbers, there has been some philosophical debate regarding using what we feel is an arbitrary number. This number doesn't truly reflect what's really happening in Sisters. We have to incorporate it into the comp plan, and then have to immediately turn around and do an amendment when the new census numbers are generated. We feel this number is artificially low for the Sisters area. LUKE: When it comes back from the County, how much time you do think you'll need to review the DLCD's comments? HARRISON: My understanding of the joint management agreement is that the City will take this document to the Deschutes County Planning Commission, there will be some recommendations made there, and then those recommendations will travel to both the City Council and the Board of Commissioners for final hearings. M a-$) 114 Your best guess is that the County Planning Commission will look at the recommendations from County Planning and will look at those from the State to make sure they have been addressed? HARRISON: Yes. LUKE: But they could step forward and raise some concerns of their own? HARRISON: Yes, they could. The Planning Commission will hold its own public hearing. During that time they will receive comments from affected citizens and from City and County staffs, and will have their own perspectives. Based on what comes out of those discussions, they will make their own recommendations. LUKE: The final say comes from the Commissioners and the City Council. If the City Council approves and the Commissioners do not, what happens? MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 12 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 HARRISON: Both governing bodies must adopt it. GEORGE READ: (George Read, Director of the County's Community Development Department) I want to state what the process is. We have a management agreement that is only a couple of years old that lays out the process. The joint management agreement explains how we deal with each other and how we're supposed to work together. It actually lays out a process that is pretty specific. LUKE: Is this now being introduced into the record? READ: The Joint Management Agreement should already be a part of the record. HARRISON: It is my understanding that it is like the zoning ordinance. It is like the comp plan. It is a document that governs, even if it hasn't formally been introduced into the record. Any party can take note of it, just like they could relevant comp plan policy or zoning ordinances. 1XV11421 I am going to allow this document into the record, since it has been referred to by both the City of Sisters and the County. The Joint Management Agreement basically answers almost all the questions brought up today regarding the process. This is an agreement detailing how we deal with land use permits and legislative amendments like the comp plan. It was signed November 12, 1998. It addresses the City limits, where the City is responsible; the UGB, where the City and County have joint responsibility; and the County, where the County is responsible. It says in this document that "within 180 days after the adoption of this agreement, the City shall process and propose to the Board of County Commissioners such text amendments .... as are necessary to make those documents consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and land use regulations". That didn't happen within the 180 days, because the City annexed the property and there was no County responsibility. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 13 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 LUKE: So it is your testimony that the agreement says that if this property is brought into the UGB, within 180 days they will submit to the County their zoning regulations for that piece of property? READ: No, it was 180 days from November 12, 1998. We were supposed to make our regulations the same. I Wei 14 So you believe the agreement says that if this property is brought into the UGB, they will submit to the County what zoning they want on the property to match the zoning of the City? No. The process specified in this agreement didn't happen within 180 days of adoption, and the County ordinance is still in effect, and will remain in effect as long as the property is still in the County. LUKE: So is it your testimony that this agreement does not affect the zoning of this piece of property? READ: The change to make the rules consistent between the City and County did not occur as anticipated in this agreement. If it comes in, it would come in under the County's zoning. LUKE: So there is no agreement to put the City's zoning on it, which there would have been if they had done it within 180 days of signing the document. So it appears this agreement does not affect this property as far as zoning goes. Yes. It was supposed to be the same, we were going to make it the same; then we did make it the same by annexing the whole UGB, but it does not apply to new property that we're going to add in. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 14 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 The other thing that is important to discuss is how the comp plan update happens. Basically the City Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council and to the Board of Commissioners. Within five days after the recommendation, the City of Sisters is supposed to give notice to the Board that they have made this recommendation, and the Board has to give twenty days notice after the City sets a date. Then a comp plan update hearing is held. DEWOLF: Does it go before the County Planning Commission at some point? That's a good point. If you have land outside the UGB that is being added into the UGB, it also goes to the Planning County Commission. So the Planning Commission for the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary is the City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission acting outside of the UGB to add something into the UGB is the County Planning Commission. DEWOLF: So we're sitting in judgment on this particular application knowing that there are other decisions that affect it, by two Planning Commissions and a City Council. 1 111 1r.111 13 It's kind of the difference between legislative and quasi-judicial. What we're in here is a quasi-judicial application, which is a little different. You can amend rules and the agreement says how you do things in a quasi-judicial manner. You can do them outside of a comprehensive plan update; or you can do them inside of a comp plan update. This process is going outside of that, as it's quasi-judicial; and therefore those bodies are not involved. The Sisters Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission are not involved in quasi-judicial applications. LUKE: If the County Commissioners voted to move this piece of property inside the UGB, then the City Planning Commission would have jurisdiction? READ: When your ordinance that makes that happens is effective. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 15 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 WILSON: I think that I've said all that we can say as a City. Dealing with the comp plan update has been a long, frustrating process. Even these two applications came to us almost two years ago. I believe we're fairly close to completing a comp plan update. The harmony between the two applications and the comp plan update is that the applications are included in that document, and not heading in some different direction and are not in opposition to what the City hopes to do. Our purpose in coming here today was to reiterate what the position of the City is as it relates to the two applications strictly from the standpoint of being included in our comp plan and the need for the acreage. The City is committed to working with some type of mitigation agreement to deal with the issues of compatibility and the applicants' acceptance of responsibility for the traffic impacts. DEWOLF: Without a transportation plan and mitigation in place and identified, how do you extract a specific dollar amount from an applicant? WILSON: My understanding is that the applicants have been working with the engineering firm of David Evans and Associates, whom the City is using on a number of projects as well. They are identifying the impact of the development on the City, and are also working with ODOT. All the key players involved in the TSP are the same as those who are working on the traffic impact of the two applications in front of you. I don't anticipate any significant surprises when the TSP comes out in six to twelve months. DEWOLF: When that comes out, is that when you'll know the financial impact? Coming up with a percentage of their impact is much simpler than trying to figure out how much money that is when there is no plan in place. WILSON: What the management agreement identifies is the highest probability of mitigation required at the two intersections; i.e. traffic lights. It takes the highest probability but leaves the flexibility to use the funds where the mitigation is needed the most. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 16 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 DEWOLF: If the use ends up being more than anticipated and the mitigation is inadequate, will the applicants then make up the difference? WILSON: I can't answer that, because you're asking me what the applicants are going to do. DEWOLF: Actually, I'm not. I'm asking what the City would require if the impact changes and the mitigation is not adequate. Will there be something in the agreement to cover this? WILSON: The two remaining issues to be dealt with were this one, perhaps addressing an adjustment factor in this case; and adjusting credits back against future SDC transportation, to make sure they are willing to adjust that number. It would appear that the applicants are willing to negotiate and come up with a way to address these two issues. I believe this will be included in the agreement. BRYANT: I believe the intention is that this would be a part of the development agreement. There is already some language in it concerning traffic impacts and percentages, and that each of the two developers would contribute to their portion of that impact. HARRISON: The closing dates are as follows. The last day to file written comments would be Monday, February 28, at 5:00 p.m. At that point the record can be reviewed, and rebuttal comments can be submitted until 5:00 p.m. on March 2. LUKE: We have a development agreement in progress. What they have submitted into the record is not the final document. What if they finish that document after February 28? Are we dealing with the one that is in the record? DEWOLF: As a part of that question, is this subject to a particular number of days? So we could in fact withhold a decision until the development agreement is completed? MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 17 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 LUKE: But the record would be closed, so if the development agreement changes in any way after February 28, we can't use it. DEWOLF: If the record was not closed, could we continue the hearing to allow only for the final development agreement to be included, and leave some time for rebuttal? HARRISON: We really need Legal Counsel's opinion on this. There is no statutory time limit. There is a legitimate concern regarding closing the written record, and subsequent changes that may be made to the development agreement after the record closes. LUKE: The Commissioners could reconvene on a regular meeting date and extend the time for comments and close again. We will close this meeting, and no more oral testimony will be allowed at this time. We may re -post and reopen this issue if necessary after consulting with Legal Counsel. (Meeting regarding oral testimony closed at 10: OS a. m) WILSON: I have another issue to ask you about. As you know, Sisters has been scrambling to put together funding for a sewer system. It is our understanding that the County is now in the process of selling its Fremont Canyon property, located just outside of Sisters; and that much of the money from this sale will be going to La Pine. I ILIJ—X This will go to La Pine to purchase property, with one of the ultimate goals to solve potential ground water problems. This affects the County as a whole. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 18 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 WILSON: The City of Sisters would consider it a favor if the Commissioners would not forget that Sisters has been working diligently to fund its sewer system as well, and Fremont Canyon is just a stone's throw from Sisters. Before you send the bulk of that money to south County, we would ask that you remember Sisters has been working very hard on this project. LUKE: I have done all I can to help Sisters with this project, with phone calls and letters. This is one County. We move property funds around as needed. We must use the funds from this sale to buy this La Pine property; there is no other money available without going into debt. You need to realize there is a substantial problem in south County. We are also looking at other projects for the rest of the money that's needed. The Fremont Canyon property was originally to be a part of a BLM trade. COI and others are still working on this, and there is an opportunity for COI to pick this property up and then trade it to BLM for property in Redmond. There are a lot of partnerships involved. WILSON: I'm just stating the fact that you're liquidating a $1.2 million property to assist the La Pine area, and to date we haven't received one dollar of assistance from the County to solve our problem in Sisters. LUKE: La Pine will get around $600,000. Funds are also earmarked for the Becky Johnson Community Center in Redmond and the Health and Human Services Building in Bend. WILSON: We would like to remind the Commissioners that if there are any excess dollars, Sisters is still short of funding and its residents could use some help. DEWOLF: This is the first time I've heard of this request, so we should discuss it at some point. The La Pine process has been going on for years. There were some 8,000 lots established in La Pine before state land use went into effect. If all of those lots were to be developed, we'd be looking at a disastrous impact to the ground water from there all the way to Warm Springs. We have been working on this situation with the state and federal governments for years. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 19 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 DEWOLF: There's no way we are going to come off of this project. This money has been specifically identified for the La Pine project, but also is going to be used for the Health and Human Services buildings in Redmond and Bend. In looking at ways to serve the entire population, those funds are really earmarked. We would have to look at some new source of funds to help Sisters. LUKE: Anything having to do with the water table affects all of us. And you are downstream from that project. Please come to the hearings on this issue, and feel free to bring us your requests. DEWOLF: We would like to meet with you to learn where your project is at this point. Linda Swearingen and I will be back in Washington D.C. in March, and we will be discussing the SCERT process. Igo ,1./ 0 COI is trying to put an exchange together. We would like Fremont Canyon to be BLM land ultimately, and under BLM's care. We would exchange with BLM for the La Pine property, but the BLM wants cash because it has made commitments to people to use the cash for other improvements. TIM CLAUSEN: (Tim Clausen of the Sisters City Council) One gripe I have with the County is this. Sister's citizens pay County taxes inside the City of Sisters. We would like to see where this money goes. LUKE: You mean like health and human services, road maintenance and other services? City residents everywhere pay County taxes. They are also County residents. CLAUSEN: We're talking about the traffic that will be generated, and taxing people through a SDC traffic charge. How does the City recuperate the costs of the daily trips of people going into Sisters from outside the city limits? We're asking developers to cover this inside the City, but what about County -approved subdivisions? It hasn't been imposed against these developers. We're paying for the County; but County residents aren't paying for City use. MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 20 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000 DEWOLF: I have a suggestion. We conduct meetings with the Bend City Council as well as the Redmond City Council every other month; perhaps we can meet with the Sisters City Council on a routine basis to discuss such issues. We would like to have a regular time to meet with you to open communication. CLAUSEN: We will get back to you with several potential dates to see if one of them would work. The meeting was concluded at 10:20 a.m. DATED THIS 91h Day of February 2000, for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: �t Linda L. Swearingen, Chair R. Luke, Vice Tom DeWolf, MINUTES of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 21 of 21 With Representatives of the City of Sisters Thursday, February 17, 2000