2000-763-Minutes for Meeting June 12,2000 Recorded 6/30/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 763
RECORDED DOCUMENT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
*CJ2000-763 * Vol -Page Printed: 07/05/2000 13:54:32
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:
Jun. 30, 2000; 3:05 p.m.
Regular Meeting (CJ)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 50
MARY SUE PENHOLLOW
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
YP CHED
- 5 2000
Board of Commissionerep
1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752
www.co.deschutes.or. us
Linda L. Swearingen
Dennis R. Luke
MINUTES OF HEARING o Tom Dewoit
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEtT'IN
LA PINE INCORPORATION BOUNDARY
MONDAY, JUNE 129 2000 uA
LA PINE HIGH SCHOOL, LA PINE, OREGON
Chair Linda Swearingen opened the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Commissioners
present were Linda L. Swearingen, Dennis R. Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also
attending were Bruce White, Legal Counsel; George Read, Dave Leslie, and
Kevin Harrison, Community Development; and Michael Maier, County
Administrator. Also present were Sheriff Greg Brown, various representatives
of the media, and over IS 0 interested citizens.
Introductions of the Commissioners, Community Development staff and Legal
Counsel were made.
BRUCE WHITE, Legal Counsel:
Read a prepared statement detailing the purpose of the hearing and a summary of
the proposal and issues (Exhibit A). His statement also included an overview of
the hearing process and the question directed to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding pre -hearing contacts.
COMMISSIONER DENNIS LUKE:
Various people on both sides of the issue have contacted me over a lengthy period
of time, some while in my position as a Commissioner and some while I was a
state representative. None of the contacts were very specific in nature.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 1 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
Quality Services Performed with Pride
COMMISSIONER LINDA SWEARINGEN:
I have been contacted numerous times in person as well as by phone, e-mail, and
regular mail, by both sides on all pertinent issues.
COMMISSIONER TOM DEWOLF:
I have been contacted by many people, some who support and some who are
against incorporation, but there has not been much contact regarding the
boundary issue. People living in the La Pine area will decide the incorporation
issue for themselves in November.
BRUCE WHITE:
Does any individual present at this hearing have a problem with the
Commissioners' disclosures? (No responses or objections were offered, so the
hearing proceeded.)
COMMISSIONER LUKE:
The Board would like the written record kept open until Monday, June 19, 2000
at 5:00 p.m.
BRUCE WHITE:
Acknowledged the Board's request, and continued reading his written statement,
concluding with the reading of a list of items currently in the record. (Exhibit A.)
KEVIN HARRISON, a Planner with County Community Development:
(Presented to the Board and audience an oversized map detailing the proposed
city boundary, with different shades showing different parts of the boundary).
This area encompasses approximately 16,000 acres. The applicant has provided a
findings document which describes the proposal and reviews the proposal against
the comprehensive plan and the statewide planning goals. The staff review of
those goals as described on Pages 19 through 43 of the applicants' findings
document shows that all the goals are covered, the analysis is complete and
thorough, and it is also our opinion that the findings document demonstrates, at
least in theory, that the proposed city can comply with the goals.
The issue we raised in the staff report had to do with the size of the proposed city;
and the inclusion of approximately 5,000 acres of land zoned for resource use --
these are properties that are currently zoned for either farm or forest use. These
properties are described as tracts 3-E, 4-E and 4-D on Map A, Page 9 of the
petitioners' findings document.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 2 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
This is an area that has been depicted as being suitable for urban services. (He
indicated another map was also displayed for the review of the audience that
details what has been described in the petitioners' document as the core area or
proposed urban area)
SWEARINGEN:
We also have a letter from Sheriff Greg Brown that we will submit for inclusion
in the record as well.
ED SULLIVAN, Attorney at Law, 222 SW Columbia, Suite 1400, Portland, OR:
I've been asked to help LCAT put a viable proposal before the voters for an
election on incorporation in La Pine. From what I understand, the County Clerk
has verified the sufficiency of the signatures; the County Surveyor has drafted a
boundary; and staff has reviewed the request and found that it can comply with
the goals. Staff raises two issues; we intend to focus our presentation on those
two issues today. They are the issues of benefit and whether resource lands
should be included within the incorporation proposal.
Benefit is probably not an issue where the area is already urban, as incorporation
provides a vehicle for urban services to be provided to those properties. It's
probably not a major issue,for those lands that are called "committed", especially
those that are less than two acres in size. LCDC recently limited the amount of
sewer and water services that can be provided to those lands and now has before
it a goal rule that will limit the creation of new parcels.
These lands, which are de facto urban by their very small size, now have a hope
of provision of services in the future. These lands also provided the basis for an
urban growth boundary, and give the local community the decision-making
authority to resolve those tough land use issues as to which lands ought to be
provided with services first. But the toughest question for us was what lands that
are now designated resource, that is, farm and forest lands, ought to be included.
LUKE:
What do you mean by "committed"?
SULLIVAN:
"Committed" means that they are not big enough to be viable farm and forest
uses.
SWEARINGEN:
How many acres are we talking about?
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 3 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
SULLIVAN:
It is noted in the beginning of the proposal. The toughest question for us was the
farm and forest lands. It was tough for us because if they are at the periphery,
they were left out, generally. If committed lands were separated by resource
lands, we left them out. We have three subdivisions that are outside the proposal
that are otherwise committed to non-farm and non -forest use.
However, generally if the resource lands were surrounded by committed lands or
urban lands, we included them for several reasons. We wanted to avoid holes in
the provision of services; and we know that there is no change by incorporation
itself.
The County plan, which has farm and forest preservation goals and policies, and
the implementing zoning, will not change by incorporation, and likely will not
change in the city's first comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. In addition,
it allows those services that come in by pipe to be provided for over adjacent
lands, even if they are farm and forest lands, without having to go to another
jurisdiction to take an exception or otherwise ask permission.
Also, resource lands within a city do share to some extent the city services
available to all. They may not share in the urban services, but they will share in
other city services. Finally, we had to balance the issue of committed lands, the
urban areas and those resources lands between them with the issue of a viable city
in terms of both economics and in providing services. We presented this with a
great deal of thought and a lot of agony in putting together these boundaries. I am
going to ask several of our members to talk to you about why the boundaries got
to be where they are.
VICKI ALLEN, the immediate past chair of LCAT, P. O. Box 2790, La Pine:
I live in the Lazy River area. I've been involved in community work for the entire
time I've lived here. I was an original member of the LCAT, and I've served as
secretary, past president and I'm currently the vice president.
In 1994 there were 14 La Pine residents that were appointed to LCAT by the
then -Commissioners. This was formed as a non-profit organization comprised of
representatives of the community to address the increased demand for services
and need to plan for our future.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 4 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
(Used an overhead, showing the names of those involved). This shows a good
cross-section of all the people that were represented and took part in all of our
meetings, and all the planning sections. There is also a map showing how well
covered we were within the area. You can see that we have almost the whole area
covered. Soon after LCAT formed, many public meetings were held to find the
community's goals. Throughout these public meetings it became apparent that in
order to achieve the economic stability, the improved roads, the enhanced parks
and recreation facilities, convenient and affordable health care, and most often
heard, to maintain our rural environment, some form of government was
necessary.
In April of 1996 the strategic plan was completed and adopted by the County.
One of the goals in strategic plan was incorporation. The LCAT began working
to achieve that goal within the given time frame. The plan called for a form of
government by the year 2000. A population and income study was done in
conjunction with continued public meetings, and in March of 1998 the LCAT
received a grant for a feasibility study of governance options.
There were three options considered. The large area city, the small area city, and
a county service district. This feasibility study showed that the large area city
was the only feasible option. These results again were taken to the public for
questions and comments, and in February of 1999 an incorporation committee
was formed. This 25 member volunteer committee was charged with setting
boundaries, choosing services, and providing information to the community. The
overhead shows a list of all of those people involved. This committee studied the
economic feasibility statement, the budget, state land use and planning goals,
state incorporation laws; they worked with service districts, several agencies, and
most importantly with public input. All of these were taken into consideration to
shape this proposal.
This committee was very deliberate in developing a proposal that would work for
La Pine. Our assistance was provided through grants and donations; technical
support was through the County and consultants, and there were over 15,000
hours of volunteer work. There was a huge grassroots effort to get the
information to the people.
As shown in the overhead, there were 163 meetings, there was a huge door-to-
door canvass that reached over 2,700 homes, and there were 28,000 newsletters
sent to all the area homes. This was an extraordinary effort to reach the public.
In May of this year enough signatures were gathered and verified to submit this
proposal to the County.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 5 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
In the event that the city was incorporated, the LCAT is prepared for that, too.
Training will been available for the new city commissioners through the League
of Oregon Cities, interim financing has been secured, memoranda of
understandings with the different service districts and the County have been
written, and the first through third year budgets have been worked out.
LCAT's position on this proposal is neutral. We just want to ensure that citizens
can make an informed decision based on correction information, and have the
opportunity to vote in November. I'd like to thank the Board for its continued
technical and financial support, and we have additional material to present to you.
In closing, I'd like to say that the government closest to the people is usually the
most responsive.
LINDA DAVIS, 6087 Tollgate, Sisters:
I have been working with LCAT for almost three years conducting the
governance study, economic feasibility statement, and I'm currently working on
the findings that you have before you. It has been a very distinct pleasure in my
career, which is over twenty-five years working in the, public sector and the last
seven years in consulting to work with the La Pine community. I am extremely
impressed by the level of community involvement, selfless volunteerism, and
willingness to pull the community up by its own bootstraps. I have never
experienced such perseverance and energy in a community. It has been a pure
delight to work with them.
I am going to talk about the boundaries. I'm not going to get into all the statewide
goal findings because you have an extensive document that discusses those. It
also discusses the boundaries, but I know that is a key issue here so I want to
emphasize some important points for you and the public. Certainly the
boundaries that we are proposing for this city that should be approved by the
voters are quite unique. We're well aware of that. In our initial governance study
that we conducted, we examined the uniqueness of those kinds of boundaries.
I don't need to point out to you the unique historical pattern of development that
occurred in south Deschutes County. I don't think that there's any place like this
anywhere in the state of Oregon; certainly around the Portland metro area there
are equally large areas of unincorporated populations, but I don't believe that
there's much like this in the way of a rural residential kind of development
pattern, so far from another urban area, almost thirty miles away.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 6 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
For the same reasons that the County pursued the regional problem -solving
project to look at environmental issues and other kinds of issues in this part of the
area, we have to think "outside the box" as to how this area is going to be
governed in the future. The fact is that we have today within these boundaries
alone probably close to 7,000 people; and the potential, based on just the
buildable lots that are available, would indicate that there could eventually be
14,000 people, or approximately double. With the addition of the new
neighborhood, there could even be more people here than what we're expecting.
So things cannot continue as they have been for the last twenty or thirty years.
Even though everyone desires to maintain a rural environment, and we think
that's quite possible with this proposal, nonetheless there are going to be a lot
more people and there is going to be a need for services beyond the capacity for
the County to deal with.
LUKE:
As I understand from talking with staff that this election is about the city limits
and is not about the UGB. The UGB will be decided if and when incorporation
happens, is that true?
DAVIS:
That is very true, and it has to do with the size of the urban growth boundary
potentially relative to the city limits. Even though this hearing does not relate to
the size of the UGB, nonetheless we had to make findings relative to statewide
planning goals that would demonstrate that we that we had adequate land for
future urban growth, and that we weren't violating any statewide planning goals.
That was the purpose of that, and it kind of cuts both ways. On one hand, I think
we've shown that there is enough land within the La Pine urban core area, and
perhaps an expansion area such as the new neighborhood or maybe Wickiup
Junction, to accommodate those needs without having to rely on the conversion of
resource lands, or what is also called exception lands or committed areas, in the
future. It will be up to the city when it develops its comprehensive plan in the
future to actually designate an urban growth boundary. (Referred to overheads.)
LUKE:
It is my understanding that even though they would be incorporate in the city, if
they are not in the urban growth boundary you cannot extend urban services to
those areas. Is that correct?
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 7 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
DAVIS:
You cannot extend what are called the urban services, the urban infrastructure -
primarily sewer and water. Those would be confined to the urban area.
S WEARINGEN:
One of my concerns is that your proposed boundary is 32 square miles. That's the
same as the City of Bend. The other concern I have is that you have 2,717 acres
of land designed EFU, 2,141 acres that are designated forest use. I would propose
that we alter the boundary so that you have some land in the future as it becomes
necessary to incorporate later on.
It does not appear to me that it makes sense to include those areas in the
boundary, especially since they are properties that have very low assessed
valuations and aren't going to be that big of an impact on the finances of the city.
You are going to be hard-pressed to provide services over much of the area.
I know, being a resident near Redmond, that we have the city come to us to ask us
to be annexed, and we've said you better not annex us in until you can provide
water and sewer. As a citizen, I would want to receive something if am going to
be incorporated. (Applause)
S WEARINGEN:
We would appreciate it if you wouldn't clap. I will say that I am very supported
of what LCAT has done, and I am hopeful that this proposal passes in November.
I do think it makes sense to make some adjustments within the boundary.
DAVIS:
This is a unique area. It is hard to explain. When you already have a
development pattern that has been established, we are not creating something that
doesn't exist. This has happened through a series of decisions that occurred in the
past, (referred to map) and we find ourselves with predominately 8,500 acres of
rural residential lands; along with a smattering of forest lands, mostly public but
some private.
Some people may think there is no distinction between some of those forest land
parcels in the rural residential area; they are just rural residential on big parcels
rather than five acre parcels.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 8 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
On EFU land, as you can see, it is predominately in a large swath that would
separate the majority of the population of the city from the downtown area. So
you would be driving from the city limits into an unincorporated area and back
into the city limits. Having worked for a city for fifteen years of my career, I
dealt a lot with urban service issues. I know this is a real problem, even for
private utility companies. If you are trying to work out franchise fees, many
things occur when you have to work with boundaries.
All cities try to come up with logical, identifiable boundaries. We didn't want to
have a Swiss cheese city with all kinds of holes in it. The other purpose for
including the resource lands is that we think that under Oregon's land use system,
we haven't done a really good job of handling the urban and rural interface.
I think this provides an opportunity, along with the County's regional problem
solving project, to show how an urban and rural interface can be managed, and
how it can be complimentary and try managing this as a package. Leaving those
areas out forces the County to handle those areas in the middle of the city. I
understand the question, it's a conceptual leap, it's a different approach, but it
makes sense to approach planning and management this way. There's nothing
illegal about it, and nothing in the goals that says you can't do it. The city will
need county's help with this approach, but I think it's possible to do.
Another thing we need to look at in terms of the future is open space. I know
right now these are privately owned farm lands, and we're not suggesting that the
city is going to go out and pass a bond issue the first year and purchase private
land. But if you look long-term, a lot of the cities in Oregon want open space, it
is very important. La Pine citizens have expressed open space as being a very
major value. (Discussed large urban parks, such as those in Boulder, Colorado
and Portland, Oregon) It may look unique but in some respects is not that
unique. In the larger picture, it is not totally out of step with what other
communities have done.
Regarding the concept for La Pine area — the core area and future urban area — we
are looking at a more intensively developed urban core, and at leaving the rest
more open. It allows urban uses to be focused in a compact urban core, and
makes transportation easier to plan. It keeps commercial development in one
place and not scattered throughout the area. It allows rural and urban areas to be
managed as a package and reduces the fragmentation that could develop as a
result of breaking this area up.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 9 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
We talked about identifiable, logical and contiguous need for the city boundary,
but equally important is the financial and political viability of the proposal. Yes,
we have based the permanent tax rate and services based upon this entire
boundary area. Therefore, alteration of the boundary could affect that viability to
some degree.
SWEARINGEN:
Theoretically, if you reduce the boundary and the amount of property, you would
provide fewer services; so you shouldn't need as much money.
DAVIS:
That depends on exactly what areas would be cut out and what the impact would
be. This proposal is balanced between property tax revenues and population
driven revenues; so you have both that are entering into the formula.
S WEARINGEN:
Out of curiosity, do you have the population study so that as we look at the
boundary we can take that into consideration so that if some of the resource land
doesn't have much assessed valuation or a large population base, and it wouldn't
adversely impact what you are doing, we could make some adjustments there?
Would it be possible to have that information so that we are not making a
decision in a vacuum?
DAVIS:
As you know, the census has just been taken, and we won't have the results of that
until the end of December. We had to come with a rough estimate on this, based
on County information. In addition to the financial impact, we need a large city
to be politically viable. Small cities have a difficult time over the long-term
maintaining political viability. Small cities have a hard time keeping a mayor and
council people; you need a larger population pool to draw from for necessary
boards and commissions.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
In regard to EFU and forest service lands, it is my understanding that the courts
won't allow sewer and water into these areas.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 10 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
DAVIS:
You could not expand sewer and water into those areas. We're obviously not
proposing to leave them out now; we would like to include them because we
think that trying to manage this urban and rural interface together makes a lot of
sense. We don't want two land use planning managers within one area; this could
be overly cumbersome and confusing. There would be certain decisions the
County would be making on the EFU land that could affect the city. It could be
difficult to coordinate between city and county.
SWEARINGEN:
I don't think that is totally true. We deal with the cities of Bend, Sisters and
Redmond on some of the same issues. We keep in contact, and it can be
addressed.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
I can understand and appreciate the uniqueness of the La Pine area; but when you
talk about lost revenue, how much revenue will you lose by not including some
subdivisions, such as Ponderosa Pines West, Pinecrest and Newberry Estates?
Why not eliminate those subdivisions that won't want to be included.
DAVIS:
I can't give you an exact figure. Early on the LCAT and the public felt it did not
make a lot of sense to include those areas, so we did not factor them in.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
My question is what happens to the people who have livestock once this is a city?
Will those animals have to go away?
DAVIS:
As long as the property is zoned as EFU, state law permits those uses. The city
would have to go through a lengthy process to change this.
LUKE:
There are livestock in the city limits of Bend that are grandfathered in, and they
may not have been even zoned EFU.
AUDIENCE MEMBER:
Most of the properties here are around two acres and are definitely not farms; but
I'd hate to see those be taken away.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 11 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
DAVIS:
Exclusive farm use zoning is just that, whether it is in the city or the County.
S WEARINGEN:
I think what she is asking is whether she can she keep livestock on a small parcel,
zoned rural residential.
DAVIS:
I can't tell you what a future city council might do. That decision would not be
made until a later date, and it's a matter of zoning. Cannot anticipate the
ordinance making of a future council, but the council will consist of local
residents who are elected to office, and it's likely they won't want it to change
either. This could happen with the County, too, if there was a health issue or
something similar.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
Who on this panel is from La Pine?
COMMISSIONER TOM DEWOLF:
None of us are from La Pine, but almost all on the LCAT are from La Pine. The
Commissioners are your city council now. That is the whole point.
TED SHOLES, Parkway Acres:
I live in the northwest portion of the proposed boundary. I have about a seven -
mile commute to the core area. I want to address some of the questions that are
coming up. The people from La Pine who came to the meetings have stated their
wishes that they want to continue to have the rural flavor of La Pine. We have all
put in many hours, lots of meetings and input from citizens regarding services,
what is really needed. Then came the financial feasibility portion where the
proposed tax base was established at $1.50 per thousand to provide need services
yet to keep the cost affordable.
We consider services synonymous with benefits, which benefit the entire
incorporation boundary. It was decided early on to keep existing services, except
road districts, intact; these services are sewer and water, which are limited to the
core area and Wickiup Junction, and are paid for by those citizens only as they
are fee -driven services. La Pine Parks and Recreation District would remain; and
La Pine Rural Fire Protection District would remain as such. Police services
provided by the County Sheriff.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 12 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
Additional services that we felt were necessary throughout the entire boundary
area were economic development. I feel economic development is the lifeblood
of a community, providing those family -wage jobs that are going to keep the city
going, provide for infrastructure, and allow families to continue to live in the La
Pine rural area. Economic development would provide for expansion and
retention of existing businesses and the recruitment of new, small, clean
industries would offer the family wage jobs that are so needed down here.
A local planning commission would be formed, permits, inspections and code
enforcement would be provided locally. These would be phased in as ordinances
and the training of staff are developed. We know that state guidelines must be
met, and it would take a while before we got completely up to speed.
Regarding Parks and Recreation, this would enable us to fund new neighborhood
parks and provide professionally directed recreational programs for all ages,
including youth and seniors. Although our Parks and Recreation provides
facilities, there is not much in the way of programs since funding is not available
at this time. The city would have the funding for programs, which would be
coordinated with the existing Parks and Recreation District. These programs
would continue and could be expanded greatly. This is a benefit for everyone.
The County currently owns the cemetery; it would be deeded to the city when it is
formed. Management of the cemetery has been difficult in the past. The city
would be able to provide stable funding, maintenance, and a management plan. A
big issue that has been discussed in regard to services and benefits is the road
system.
KEN MULENEX, 52386 Glenwood in Glenwood Acres:
There has been a lot of communication and interest regarding the road
maintenance issue. Because of this a road services committee was spin-off to
address this issue. Since November 1999, we held monthly meetings that were
well attended by the public. These meetings were structured strictly to address
road services issues within boundaries, and not the merits of incorporation.
Three basic ideas emerged. The first one was that a road services plan is needed
should the city incorporate. A plan such as this would ensure that the city roads
within the boundary are maintained on a continued basis to a given set of
standards. The development of this plan has already been started, and has several
sections near completion. We looked at this under the idea of contracting these
services.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 13 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
The basic features of this plan of course, as they apply to us, are the snow
removal services; the second piece would be a maintenance and improvement
plan, which would take in grading, putting the roads into decent condition to put
them at a starting level, and dust control. Then there would be the long-term
improvements, which would include permanent standards, dealing with both
types of roads, both gravel and paved.
Second, the need for a road services advisory committee to work this would be
met by individuals from the community. There is a ten -member road services
advisory committee, with nine members already in place and one pending. This
is made up of volunteers from each of the service areas within the boundary.
The committee will finish the service plan, and then as a committee will be
available to the city council to assist in an administrative plan.
Third, there was a need to divide the area within the boundary into maintenance
service areas. As a part of the plan, the area was divided into ten areas, with a
member from each area to serve on the road services advisory committee. This
would allow for road services on a timely and uniform basis throughout the
boundary area. A lot of discussion went into this.
Now for the roads themselves. State gas tax money will be available for
residential roads and services for the first time ever. The city would receive
approximately $350,000 in state gas tax money for these services. That's one of
the population -based formula revenues. The County would continue to maintain
County roads.
The current road districts within the boundary would dissolve and there would be
no more road district taxes. The moneys already collected from these road
districts will continue to be spent for the specific road districts, and the road
districts' debts will be assumed by new city. This approximately $350,000 will
mean more money for the roads currently in road districts, and will provide better
services from the increased funds available.
(Referred to overheads) With incorporation there will be an increase in money
spent on roads; while there will be a small change in the overall tax rate, this will
be a major increase in what is spent on roads for each road district area. I hope
everyone can see that, without a doubt, everyone would benefit from improved
road maintenance services. This $350,000 will only come to us if we incorporate.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 14 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
But that's not all. There can be more; such as the leveraging of block grants that
can bring large sums of money specifically earmarked for road maintenance
programs. There are a lot of you who are asking, "will it benefit me?" I may live
on a County road, but every day in my business and personal life I am forced to
drive on some of the worst rural residential roads anywhere. That does affect me
with the dust and poor air quality, and the emergency services vehicles drive
these roads every day, resulting in longer response times and excess wear and tear
on those vehicles.
LUKE:
Redmond and Bend have taken over the County roads, usually with some funding
that decreases over a period of time; did your group look at that?
MULENEX:
We had not looked specifically at that piece; we have had meeting with the
County Road Department; they did state that this is an option. We did discuss
this type of issue at our meetings; it was made plain that this could be an option
for us; and this is the kind of issue that the road services advisory committee will
look at as we move toward finishing the road services plan.
JILL PHILLIPS-MCLANE, 53761 Day Road:
I am La Pine's community encourager, which means I have been managing this
incorporation project and bringing community members together to discuss this
issue and develop the proposal. I would like to describe some of the less tangible
benefits of incorporation. This is a proposal that was developed with community
input, and our purpose today is to encourage the County Commissioners to place
this issue on the ballot as it has been presented.
Although unincorporated, few would disagree that La Pine is a community, and
almost everyone living inside the proposed boundary considers themselves a part
of this La Pine community. We have found over the past several years that most
La Pine residents envision a similar future for La Pine. Most would like to see
and value the rural atmosphere; and we enjoy a nice quality of life. Access to
health care is important; most would like to see more family wage jobs; and most
are interested in living within a safe community. La Pine's goals and strategic
plan are based on this community vision.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 15 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
Recently community members had an opportunity to work with planners and
architects to actually develop a physical concept for La Pine. This is a vision that
involves the entire area. We are interested in maintaining green belts, in gaining
some access to rivers, local neighborhood parks, and tying the entire community
to downtown, which we hope someday will be very walkable. We know that in
order to achieve a community vision, we must be able to address issues locally.
We know that Deschutes County government works very hard and we appreciate
the support that the County has given to our community over the years, especially
recently. We know, however, that county government is not structured to handle
many of the types of the community issues facing La Pine. We know that it is
difficult to make any community improvements because we don't have a local
revenue source. We know that carry -through is challenging because of the
volunteer status of our community. We are unable, as an unincorporated
community without a representative government body, to advocate for our
community, to sit in and help to make decisions that affect our community. We
also know that there is no long-term, unifying force here in La Pine.
Despite La Pine's rapid rate of growth, our medical services in the area are
declining, and this crisis situation is one that we are very ill prepared to address.
We know that other communities of similar size in central Oregon that have
incorporated, Madras and Prineville, have increasing levels of health care
services. Because we are not able to provide the type of community amenities
that support physicians and their families, we're seeing it is very difficult to
recruit physicians. We know they have an interest in neighborhood parks,
recreation, roads, and so on. They look for indicators of the value the residents
place on their community. We know that this situation is not likely to change as
it is. We need a small hospital; and we need to be able to apply for block grants.
It is important to be able to provide services; and this community is very capable
of governing itself. We see that the incorporation proposal is well planned and
feasible. Although the boundary is unique, it is compatible with La Pine's growth
patterns and it complies with provisions of state laws. We respectfully request
that the Deschutes County Commissioners agree to place this incorporation
question on the ballot, with the boundaries as proposed in the petition.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 16 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
SWEARINGEN:
We have 45 people who signed up to testify, so we will call up three at a time.
Please be respectful of one another, and keep your comments concise and to the
point. This isn't the place to discuss whether you are for or against incorporation,
as there will be a vote in November. We are here to address the boundary issues
and whether it meets statewide goals.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY BEGAN
HENRY KELLEY, 52805 Wayside Loop, Forest View Subdivision:
My subdivision is about six miles from here, and we currently have a road
district, and we pay $1.22 per thousand right now. We have never in the past
years had over $13,000 maximum on our tax levy for road district. I am speaking
for myself here. There is nothing that the city of La Pine could do or provide for
us; there is no sewer or water service, police, medical or fire, that we don't have
now at a lower cost. The new city cannot provide water or sewer.
I am speaking against the incorporation at its present boundary. I was told main
reason for the boundary was that during the survey most people feel they are in
La Pine for social reasons. And I understand that there are no funds available for
about a year after incorporation
SWEARINGEN:
The only time it can be voted on is in fall.
KELLEY:
What funds available to operate city? They said they could borrow the money or
obtain grants. If they borrow the money, how are they going to pay it back? I
feel La Pine incorporation area should not include his neighborhood, as it would
not receive any benefit.
BOB VAUGHT, 15805 Twin Drive, Special Road District 8:
I live about 8.3 miles from the core area. There are about 270 homes in my area,
and growing. (Entered two letters from other residents into the record at this
time) Thirty-two square miles is very large, as Bend is thirty-eight square miles.
A letter was sent to Commissioners with a petition of 130 signatures of residents
in my area last July. We also submitted the petition to LCAT, asking them to
redefine northern boundary of the incorporation area to exclude Road District 8.
No response was received.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 17 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
What has happened to the democratic way? We will get no added police, fire,
sewer, or water benefits, and no local control of our schools. We moved to the
northern end of La Pine community for a reason. We want to be left as we are in
the County; our road district is functional, with fairly good snow removal and
maintenance. We pay $1.69 per thousand, and we all are happy with that. I have
been chairman and treasurer of Road District 8 in the past.
S WEARINGEN:
Incorporation would cost you less, at $1.50 per thousand. Do you really want to
pay more?
VAUGHT:
Yes. And so would others.
HARRY GODSIL, 51956 Dorrance Meadow Road:
"Possible" means capable of happening; capable of favorable development.
When you weigh the facts and circumstances of incorporation as presented by
LCAT, it is easy to see that La Pine incorporation is possible. That is not to be
decided here tonight; that decision will be made in November by the people who
live here. We ask the Commissioners for that opportunity. "Opportunity" means
favorable or advantageous circumstances; a change for progress or advancement.
All kinds of opportunities are presented to us during our lifetimes. Opportunities
are not always pure, blind luck; the committee for incorporation has created this
opportunity by some very hard work and long hours.
They had to weigh any number of possibilities to arrive at their decisions for the
choice of a boundary. Their choice is based on the most economically feasible
boundary. Their work, their study, their inclusion of the entire community in the
process through open meetings, their strict adherence to facts, truth, logic and
reason should earn them the opportunity to see that effort rewarded by the
appearance of the issue of La Pine's incorporation on the November ballot.
This issue should appear on the ballot with the boundaries intact as presented. Is
incorporation possible? Yes. Is it an opportunity? Yes. Should the residents of
La Pine make the final decision? Yes. All we ask is that the Commissioners give
us the opportunity to strengthen and beautify this part of Deschutes County.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 18 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
JOHN TAYLOR, Lazy River South, 52362 Riverview Drive:
I live on a paved road. I am a retired city regional planner, and chairman of the
La Pine Park and Recreation District. I serve on several community committees.
I also served on the regional problem solving committee. I feel that all the
aspects considered in the proposed incorporation and suggested boundaries will
greatly benefit the majority - whether they agree or not - of the population of La
Pine. I live on a limited retirement budget; however, I feel it is only right to carry
my fair share for the cost of a new city. I'm sure I could come up with $10 to $15
per month. The new benefits to La Pine far outweigh my tax contribution.
After many years of my planning career and my experience in city and county
government, I am thoroughly convinced that the proposed boundaries make the
greatest sense for the planning and operation of a viable city. I made leaflets
available at the many public meetings, and shared those with members of Road
District 8 feels the tax rate was misrepresented to them.
LUKE:
Please don't disparage anyone.
S WEARINGEN:
We need to keep this respectful to one another.
TAYLOR:
When looking at the forest and farmland that we have here, a lot of expert help
was utilized. With all things considered, the present rate of growth of community
is 7%; in 15 years it could be double of what it is right now, and all of those
resource lands will come under pressure for development. We looked at
greenways, etc. to become viable part of community. The boundaries that have
been proposed make sense, and I hope the Board keeps to those proposed
boundaries.
BUTCH CRUME, 51442 Hann Road:
My family has been in this area for about 25 years. I would like the Board to take
a good look at the folks that are here; most of us are going to be dead in about 20
years. It is not an encouraging thought, but it is realistic. One of the things that
we have to leave behind is a place for our children to live; an organized
community so that they can grow. Why aren't there many young faces here
today? Because there is nothing here for them to do, to grow, to earn a family
wage.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 19 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
I really think that for La Pine to maintain its rural community desire is for us to
take control of our own destiny, and we have an opportunity to do that. Within
that opportunity we have another opportunity to provide the industrial park with
the ingredients that will attract stable jobs, stable community, health care
professionals, and give our children and their children a chance to live and grow
in a community that they desire.
CARI CRUME, 51442 Hann Road:
I am a graduate of La Pine High School, and also attended elementary school
here. I really love this community, and would like to come back to La Pine after
college, and get a living wage job, and be able to raise a family here safely, with
medical care nearby; and have a school for my children that will have them come
out better prepared for college than I did when I graduated. I agree with these
boundaries.
We used to live a long way from town and it was sometimes hard to get to work,
school, or church. Within these boundaries, those roads would be better
maintained. I hope that the Board gives us the opportunity to vote on
incorporation so that those people who are going to be living here in the future
have a chance to voice their opinions locally. I support the Board allowing a vote
on the existing proposed boundary.
REX GARRETT, Lazy River South, 1St Edition, 53080 Bridge Drive:
I think the main thing that has been overlooked in setting the boundaries is they
haven't really told us the exact future costs of this situation. $1.50 per thousand
now, but it could go up. Other cities have raised their tax rates, as has the
County. My taxes have doubled over the past 20 or 30 years, and we could be
looking at a constant increase over the years. I have discussed this with friends
who moved to Redmond, and their taxes went up 20 percent.
Regarding road maintenance — the County will maintain them for a certain period
of time — but sooner or later you will have to maintain all the roads yourselves.
No cost study has been done on maintaining all the roads. We already have good
maintenance from the County. You'll have a road department, a planning
department, and others, and will have to hire people, with a tremendous startup
cost. You'll have to provide health benefits, pension plan and other benefits.
When you look at the organization chart of other cities, you will find that they
spend millions of dollars just on their personnel. They will also need land and
buildings.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 20 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
DEWOLF:
There are a number of things I think you have drawn an incorrect conclusion on.
I used to serve on the city council of Bend. The tax rate of the City of Bend has
actually dropped in half in the past ten years; it has not gone up. Assessed value
is established by state law, and according to Measure 50 cannot change. We no
longer raise those rates; they are fixed to go up automatically 3% per year. The
County rate is substantially lower than it was ten years ago. All cities are lower.
What makes property taxes go up is when we want to build new libraries or new
schools. We agree to tax ourselves an additional amount, but that's not the city's
tax rate going up; that's we as a people choosing to raise our own taxes for these
things, whether they are for our kids or ourselves. That is not a function of a city.
You mentioned the road maintenance. As long as they remain county roads, the
county will maintain them. City of La Pine would not have a health department;
none of the cities do; this is a function of the county and the state. As far as start-
up costs are concerned, we've been working very closely with representative Ben
Westlund in finding dollars through the emergency board, because there will be
start-up costs and a lag between the time the city incorporates and about ten
months later when funds come in. Those funds are being sought through the
state, and it will not be in the form of a loan. These are coming in the form of a
grant through the state and through Deschutes County.
GARRETT:
Regarding the City of Bend taxes going down, they have enough tax base to
work. The City of La Pine would be too stretched out. The County rate, in my
opinion, would be lower than city rates. People don't want to pay for something
they won't get. A county service district would be cheaper for water and sewer.
This town won't make a go of it unless it has sewer and water.
MEL JACOBS, 16170 Eagles' Nest Road:
I am a member of La Pine incorporation committee and have been involved since
its inception. I was chairperson for the public information committee, and I went
door to door last summer handing out packets and speaking with local residents
regarding the incorporation. I personally handed out over 600 of the packets. La
Pine has no voice in the state or County political arena. Currently you three
County Commissioners are the only local government in La Pine. None of you
live in La Pine, so how are you to know what we as a community want.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 21 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
The majority of residents with whom I spoke are in favor of incorporation. Local
control means we as a community will solve our own problems with added
growth, more children in our schools, more traffic on our roads, more demand on
our fire department. How is our community to manage these growth issues if no
one is listening to us as a community? We don't have the resources to help
ourselves. We feel incorporation is the answer.
In January of this year I formed a PAC, known as the Citizens for Local Control
of La Pine. Local control is a primary reason for wanting to incorporate. We
began to gather signatures for a petition so we could get the incorporation
measure placed on the November 2000 ballot. I personally gathered over 300
signatures. During the various times I was going door to door, I spoke with a lot
of people, explaining what incorporation would mean to this community and what
it would cost. The incorporation boundaries are based on sound ideals as a
healthier community that will be able to maintain its rural identity and high
quality of life, to preserve a pristine natural environment while diversifying the
economy, developing the south into a full-service community. We urge you to
endorse our incorporation efforts.
In talking with people about incorporation, most La Pine residents are in favor.
They want to preserve natural environment with local control. There are 3 classes
of people here; those who are for, against, or don't know. Most who are for it are
involved in paying for their road maintenance; those who don't pay are against
incorporation. There is a large majority who doesn't have all the facts about
incorporation; and lots of misinformation is being circulated. Economic
development will help us all, resulting in higher wage jobs, a health center, more
doctors; we'll be able to take care of ourselves instead of looking outside of the
community for rescue. It is time for us as citizens of La Pine to stand on own feet
and solve own problems.
CAROL ZETTEL, 16143 Hawk Lair:
I am on the committee to incorporate. My reasons for supporting incorporation
are more personal. I was raised in La Pine; but I had to move away to get a job,
get training, and then came back; and I now have two teenagers who will have to
move away to get decent paying jobs. I would like to request that you keep in the
farm use lands in the boundaries, because I would like to keep La Pine as rural as
possible. I feel it is needed just for an open feel. We don't want to feel
congested, and we do not want to be another Bend.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 22 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
I am one of those who has to pass the hat on my street to get my road plowed
every year, and usually I have to wait until it's about three feet deep. I have 4 -
wheel drive and I can get out; but others don't, and that's about the time they
agree to pay. I want to thank you for considering this.
DAVID H. TJOMSLAND, P O Box 1274:
I am also speaking for my neighbor, Curtis Adams, who lives just north of him on
Riverpine Road.
I do not support this petition. Even with all the research and work that's been
done, I don't believe there's enough money to finance this program. A newsletter
says $1.50 per thousand. In page 2 of the Executive Summary it says $2.70 per
thousand, which includes road maintenance. The $1.50 did not include road
maintenance.
aw"
I believe the proposed ballot measure calls for $1.50. That would be what is
voted on.
TJOMSLAND:
Then where does the $2.70 come from? The other part of the Executive
Summary, page 17, says this is a bare bones budget. Page 38 talks about
franchise fees. It's not a tax. Franchise fees in 2005 will be $250,000. That's the
same thing as a tax, and we're going to pay it. In one of the meetings I was at,
someone said that you can't compare cities and budgets, but all cities and budgets
have some base formats. (Gave examples of Coquille, Bandon.) La Pine would
be much larger with a much smaller budget. The basic thing is the cost of new
personnel, buildings, and so on, and in my opinion $1.50 is not going to cover it.
I, for one, am satisfied with the services I get from the county. We just
remodeled and got our permits fine. I think Mr. Brown is doing a fine job as the
Sheriff. I don't' have a problem, We have already paid for these services. Sure
enough, if we do other services, are the county taxes going to get reduced? I'd bet
not. So it is my feeling that this incorporation provides no advantage to my
neighbors or me.
LUKE:
Will someone please address the $2.70 while he's still up here?
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 23 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
JILL PHILLIPS-MCLANE:
The $2.70 was mentioned in the feasibility study, which was at the beginning. In
that feasibility study there was executive summary that outlines the results of the
entire feasibility study. One of the things we considered was taking over and
maintaining county roads. What we ultimately came up with was the services
that you see outlined, as filed with the county in the economic feasibility
statement. That shows $1.50 per thousand and outlines specifically what services
would be provided with that tax rate, and has a first through third year budget that
breaks down how that budget was established and how things will be spent.
STERLING BENZAL, 16210 Leona Lane
I have lived here since February 1979, and have had a business in La Pine for 10
years. I'm one of those people who lived on a gravel road, poorly maintained, and
we got tired of the dust. We organized Leona Lane; we had our street paved.
This cost each one of us $2,300 per lot to get our road paved. So the County
plows our road, and I'm happy with that situation.
So why am I in favor of incorporation, and why do I ask you as Commissioners to
accept the boundary, and put this on the ballot? We must let democracy work; let
us vote for it. The reason I am in favor of this - and it will not do anything for
Sterling Bezel, and will cost me $1.50 per thousand so other people can benefit - I
have my whole family here, they all have jobs and property here, and they plan to
stay here.
I appreciate what these people have done, and when I disagreed I would follow up
with them, and I think that is the way things should be. I want you people to
understand that there is no personal gain for me to support this; in 20 years we
need to have something in place, I'm still going to be here. This needs to work.
Please consider this, and give it a chance.
SANDRA MARKS, 16366 Sparks Drive, Special Road District #8:
I am not part of the "we" that you have been hearing about. I moved to La Pine in
1984. One thing I've learned is that La Pine is a community of heart. In the past
16 years I have seen La Pine grow into a wonderful little community, where
separate and opposing factions have come together to improve our town and work
hand in hand in order to provide more community services and more
opportunities, for young and old alike.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 24 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
I've been a proud member of the community, and I've been involved in a lot of its
growth. I've served on a lot of boards in the area over the years. With growth
comes change, and both are inevitable. We can't stop the hands of time, nor can
we turn back the clock. Our only hope is to manage the growth in such a way to
benefit the community at large, and yet maintain the rural atmosphere we all
cherish. We've made great strides up till now, but the things that La Pine needs
now cannot be provided by volunteer help or donations. We've gotten beyond
that.
I feel the incorporation is the next we have to take in order to take some control
over the changes that we are going to see due to growth. And who better to
manage and control the growth in La Pine but us, the people who live here; not jut
some of us, but all of us, all of the communities around the area. When I first
moved into the road district, I held a lot of the meetings at my house, and I served
on the board for a number of years, so I understand all the difficulties and hard
work that is involved in managing the roads. We just have twelve miles to worry
about.
One of the things I learned the most about it is that the hardest part is getting
people involved; but mostly when you got the people involved and more people
attending the meetings, then things went easier and you got more done. The same
holds through with this.
The key to success in any venture is that everyone needs to work together for a
common goal. So unless you want to return to the days of old where each little
section is its own empire with its own set of rules and its own responsibilities,
then incorporation is the only way for us to go. There is strength in numbers, and
only together can we manage and improve so we can see our community grow
like we want it to.
Special Road District 8 is a part of that community and it shouldn't be removed
from the boundary. I heard Bob Vaught say that we wouldn't benefit from those
services that the incorporation would provide. I am sorry, but each and every one
of you has families that maybe would like to move here, if they had wage earning
jobs available for them. When you're sick and you need better medical services
and they are available, that would be nice, too. That would be a benefit. Our
road district taxes will go down; that is a good thing. More services, less taxes.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 25 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
I don't see what the problem is here. I think that's the way it needs to be. Any
venture that we get into can be scary and risky, but one thing that you need to
remember is when Special Road District 8 was first formed, its success was
uncertain. A lot of roads did not want to be involved in that road district, and
weren't.
Now we have people coming to the road district and asking to be annexed into it,
because its success has been proven. I don't want to see Road District 8 or me
being one of those begging to be annexed into the city once its success has been
proven. And I believe that it will be successful.
I think we all need to work together and make this the place that we want to live;
and those people who feel there is a problem, don't remove the district from the
boundary in order to solve that problem. Ask those people with concerns to serve
with that board in order to make sure they get the services they feel they deserve.
How better to improve our community and keep its rural atmosphere than to work
for it?
TERI BAKER, 52510 Lost Ponderosa:
I had a speech prepared, but I don't think I can add anything more or better than
what Sandra just said. I feel all will benefit from being within the boundary.
(Submitted a letter from someone who could not make meeting, but wanted
everyone to know, for the record, that they are in favor of the incorporation.)
PATRICIA BODI, 52556 Deerfield Drive:
We've heard a lot of pro's and cons, but I can only speak the way I feel. We
moved here from San Diego on the worst winter lately in 1992/93. We made the
choice to mover here knowing would be a rural, unincorporated community. We
knew it, we knew what we were getting into, and we embraced it. We also know
it is growing like crazy in the La Pine area. Eventually it will be incorporated,
but hopefully not this time. The boundaries don't reflect some of what is
happening in La Pine.
There are three major residential subdivisions - Ponderosa Pines, Pinecrest, and
Newberry Estates - that I would like seeing reap the benefits of this incorporation.
I think they should be included in this incorporation, and I request the boundaries
be modified to show this.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 26 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
I understand that the $1.50 per thousand is it, and it can't be changed. I believe
that's true. But I also believe, and it has been shown time and time again, that
there are always bond measures coming on the ballots because the tax rate is
insufficient to pay the expenses incurred by the city. So if any of you think that
$1.50 per thousand is going to be most that you'll ever have to pay, look again.
There is going to be a bond measure just around the corner.
CLARENCE SMITH, 52538 Doe Lane:
I feel that Pat's point is true. There will be more bond measures - whether we
incorporated or not. The issue here is whether we are going to have control over
how we grow and whether we have local control. I urge the Commission to
accept the boundary because I feel that the city of La Pine has a right and destiny
to make its own choices.
DENNIS CARTER, 51457 Morrison St.:
I am Chairman of La Pine Sewer District, and I also sit on the newly formed La
Pine Water District. I believe that we need to be in charge of our own destiny. I
believe in local control. I have a lot of faith in the Commissioners, but I would
rather do it myself. I hope everybody else does, too.
CAL DOWNS, P. O. Box 1078, La Pine:
My voice doesn't go very far in the County. But if we incorporate, my vote will
count a lot more, as one of 4,000 voters than as one of 100,000. I am in favor of
the boundaries as they now. I'm retired, and it will cost me about $150 per year.
I can't afford it, but I cannot afford not to, either. I can't say a word about how
my tax dollars are spent now. The County spends them as they please, or don't
please. but want to spend my tax dollars as I see fit. I don't want to spend money
on more schools or more subdivisions. As a city, we can control part of that.
ELIZABETH EIDEN, 15951 Twin Drive:
I live in Special Road District 8. Many of us don't want it, although there may be
some good but we still won't have a say in much. I wish to be withdrawn from
boundary.
FLOYD SUMMERS, 51885 Pine Loop Drive, Ponderosa Pines East:
I've been to some of the meetings and I've heard so many stories, it gets confusing
with so much information. I spoke about people working on this about the about
sewer system way outside of town, which costs each property owner $25,000 or
more each. How many substations between here and the river? They had not
thought of that.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 27 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
I went to another meeting on road district, and they said the gas tax would support
road districts. They had the contractor already picked out, except for road
districts. (Ramblings about salaries, buildings, "do -dads "for offices, etc)
No one works for nothing, and they have to have a place to work, and rigs to run
around in. When I wanted my road fixed, the county said it was broke but just
got through building the new road building east of Bend. I am against
incorporation. And why are doctors leaving? Rumor is that is has to do with
abortions. (Commissioner Swearingen asked for him to get back on track.)
I would like to get a copy of an audit of this incorporation committee's money
received and spent. Under the right to know law, I have a right to that
information.
LUKE:
No money has gone to the incorporation committee. Money has gone to LCAT, a
non-profit group; if they become for profit or become partisan, they could lose
their tax-exempt status. The County is required to fund information to citizens so
that they can make an educated decision about incorporation. The state requires it.
The local citizens submitted incorporation petitions to the County Clerk, and it is
our job to provide as much information as possible to all of the citizens of the La
Pine area so they can make an educated decision when it is time to you to vote.
EUNICE MCCLOUD, 53525 Bridge Drive, Lazy River South:
Lazy River South and Summit Acres are from where the gravel road comes into
Riverview and goes down to Otter Drive. We wish to withdraw from the
incorporation area. (Read a prepared statement and a list of 131 people who wish
to be left out of the incorporation boundary.)
What local control will we get? My husband and I were never notified of these
boundaries until it came out in the paper. We will never get water and sewer
services, and we are satisfied with what we have. (Described location on map)
It seems unfair that we would be in this boundary. We went to lots of meetings
and don't understand how these boundaries were drawn up.
NANCY CRAVEN, Land Use Attorney:
I am representing Jim and Kelly Young and Ken and Ginger Harrison, who own
350 acres of EFU zoned land and 850 of EFU zoned land. Both of these ranches
are on the river, both are active ranch operations with livestock. Both are
proposed to be included within the boundary of the proposed La Pine City.
(Submitted a letter. Referred to a map showing the boundary.)
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 28 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
They are contiguous ownerships, and we represent both property owners. They
are both are EFU properties with significant livestock operations and resource,
river and wildlife habitat. Together these two ranches compose 25% of all the
resource land that is proposed to be included in the boundary, and 41% of all the
farmland. My letter outlines our opposition to their inclusion in the boundary; it
is our view that we are not necessarily opposed to the incorporation of the urban
areas, but we are opposed to and will actively challenge any boundary that
includes significant resource lands that are not benefited by the proposal.
This is not just a very unusual proposal that you have in regard to boundaries; I
think it is unprecedented. It includes 16,000 acres of land, close to one-third of
that is resource land, approximately 5,000 acres. There is no reason to include
this resource land in this boundary. It is contrary to law, and you need exclude
resource land that is not benefited from the proposal.
Regarding statutory standards regarding benefits, there is only one. This property
is not benefited (Page 6 of Staff Findings). The proponents can show no benefit,
and the proponents need to show a measurable and identifiable benefit. Benefits
generally refer to services that enhance or improve the properties and these are
generally urban style benefits.
These lands will not be entitled to sewer and water. There are no roads serving
these properties; nor are they bisected by any roads; in fact, roads cannot even be
built except in limited circumstances on EFU lands. There would be no change
involving Sheriffs services.
How did the proponents come up with a general benefit? I disagree that a city
should be in the shape of a square to logically be a city. Cities needs to include
the lands that are intended for or needed for urban development or urban services.
State law governs EFU lands and the uses allowed thereon, and the intensity of
use is extremely rural. The uses allowed are not urban and not even rural
residential, and this is precluded by law. It is clear that it does not stand up to any
scrutiny, and they have not made the benefits case.
One of the real reasons for including this land was to get a lower tax rate for the
core area of La Pine. The benefiting of core area does not constitute a benefit to
the EFU lands. Your staff indicated that the inclusion of all the forest service
public and private EFU lands constitutes only five percent of the total land, which
would not be a significant tax hit if excluded.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 29 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
The submittal also suggests that this proposal is consistent with Goal 11 and Goal
14 regarding the orderly development of land from rural to urban. This is a very
strange proposal when referring to the applications of Goal 11 and Goal 14. I will
submit a written response to Mr. Sullivan in regard to those issues. The
Commissioners are particularly diligent in regard to EFU and forest land issues,
and you struggle with a whole set of intricate issues in this regard. This is a
significant taking of resource lands and putting them in a city, without benefit.
The proponents suggest incorporation does not necessarily affect Goal 3 and Goal
4, and how those resource lands would be handled in the future. I don't think
that's necessarily true, as many uses that are approved on Goal 3 and 4 lands are
done through an exception analysis and an alternatives analysis. If these lands are
all of a sudden in a city, then the alternatives analysis that should be looked at for
a use under which you need an exception for Goals 3 and 4, I believe that the area
that needs to be considered has all of a sudden been shrunk to the La Pine city
limits. There's no longer a need to consider south Deschutes County in regard to
an alternatives analysis.
By being in the city, piecemeal development of those parcels is much more likely
than if they were outside the city limits. They should be able to annex this land
when and if they have a need for it. The rationale provided earlier does not apply.
There won't be holes in services, since they aren't going to be provided services.
There is no change in the plan regarding Goals 3 and 4. They talk about concerns
about going over different jurisdictions to extend pipes — this is not a big city
problem; these situations can be addressed when necessary. I don't think that
these resources lands will share in other city services.
My clients want to see a viable La Pine with economic development, but the
proposed use on EFU land is not appropriate. I urge you to readjust the boundary
to exclude these two ranches and two comply with the statutory requirement that
the land be benefited before it can be included in the proposed boundary.
LUKE:
I understand that EFU ground can be taken out of EFU use for general
recreational purposes.
CRAVEN:
There are certain recreational uses allowed in EFU land.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 30 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
LUKE:
One of the reasons for inclusion of this property was to have open space within
the city.
CRAVEN:
I question is the benefit to these ranches if they are included. In the future if open
space is suggested by the City of La Pine, there is a process under Goal 5 they can
go through to try to obtain this type of land.
DEWOLF:
Do you feel all resource land should be removed from the boundary or just these
two ranches?
CRAVEN:
I have not researched the others, but I feel the public ownerships and large,
private ownerships probably fall within the same category.
ERNIE POOL, 53196 Bridge Drive:
In 1993 the La Pine port issue was on the ballot. I opposed that issue then. After
that was defeated, I was appointed by the then County Commissioners to serve on
the La Pine CAT. I brought my viewpoint of rural living into LCAT, and we
worked on the first strategic plan for La Pine. In that was a vision of our
community. It was something that we all agreed on, and we didn't have the
division then; we came together as a community with ideas.
We held nearly 40 public hearings through different elements of that strategic
plan. I served on that for nearly two years. We worked with Deschutes County
to try to bring funds into the community for improvements. I was appointed to
serve on the then on regional problem solving project at that time, with the
County trying to bring federal, state and local agencies together to look at the La
Pine area.
I was amazed to find that we're in the country, but the La Pine area is the basis
for all of the statewide planning goals and LCDC, because these were
subdivisions that were created without any infrastructure at all. We're paying for
that today. This community needs millions of dollars in the future. What is going
to be here in the future for our children?
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 31 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
We have very serious land use problems here; ask George Read, who is trying to
come up with ideas to help solve these problems. In your use of your individual
lots and lands, do you know that there is a regional strategies board that is looking
at how you can use your land in the future? You really need a local government
now. Here's your opportunity to vote for a city council. No matter what your
opinion is, there should be local people there to truly represent you.
True, at $1.50 per thousand, this is just the start of a community. We don't know
what the future will really hold, but we've got to go at it or someone else will
control this area. We need to come together as a community to try to solve our
problems ourselves and bring grant money into this area. Many local people
don't really realize the problems this community faces, including something as
simple as putting in a septic system. Regarding Goals 3 and 4, Regional Problem
Solving allows exemptions of administrative rules and goals, and as I see it this
incorporation would come under this law. We need to have this area
incorporated, and all work together for our community.
ED BROWN, 51685 Pine Loop Dr., Ponderosa Pines East Special Road District:
I am the Chair of the Road District. When we started looking at this last fall, we
sent a survey out to 70 property owners in our District. The question was,
without prompting from the District, are you in favor or not in favor of
incorporation. All but two respondents were not in favor of incorporation. The
results were turned in to the County's legal counsel. I am speaking for the
residents of Ponderosa Pines East; we believe that some of the early maps we saw
did not include us, but we understand that things change.
We keep hearing about local representation. We had a problem with road
maintenance. Through the State of Oregon you are able to form a special road
district and do your own work. We took that initiative, and some folks in our
subdivision who are here now started that; to me, we have the basic form of local
government. We have neighborhood representation and control, and we don't
want to lose that control. So we respectfully request to be removed from the La
Pine incorporation boundary, as we see no benefit for us in our road district.
GLEN STREBEL, 16315 Twin Drive, in Special Road District #8:
For a long time I was neither for nor against incorporation, as I was waiting to be
informed. Approximately a year ago I went to a meeting and asked the question
about the $1.50 per thousand and whether we would get more road services for
that money. I asked who would be providing that service, and exactly what we
would be getting above and beyond what we are already getting.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 32 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
To this date no one has been able to adequately answer that question. I'd like to
know what will happen with this money, and who will actually be doing the road
maintenance, the dust abatement and snow removal. Since I still haven't been
able to obtain answers to these questions, I do not think incorporation should go
any further. I think the Commissioners should deny it.
PAT KRANSNOFF, 15766 Davis Road, La Pine:
I would like to thank the Commission for coming down and having the hearing in
La Pine. I heard a lot from LCAT tonight; they are supposed to be neutral, yet
one of the very first speakers said LCAT's goal is incorporation. If their goal is
incorporation, how can they be neutral? There is no way. Everyone they hire is
hired by a board that is totally pro -incorporation. I tried to get on the board and I
could not, so I finally quit coming to the hearings for it. To me, they have come
out with a campaign stating that there is too much rumor, none of this information
can be right, come ask the board. When you ask them, they tell you they are
checking into that, especially how they will be getting funds.
They are right, the rate can't go up without a vote of the people in the area. The
value of your property goes up 3 percent per year, which is a very low way for it
to go up. I have heard tonight that the farmlands want to be excluded, and I think
that is very appropriate. If the farm lands are excluded, then let's make the river
the boundary.
I'm told that if I don't get any benefit from it, that I can't be included. They have
yet to show me how, when I pay about $50 per year now to have my road graded
and snow removal done, how this is going to be the same. It's no more benefit to
me if I'm already paying for it. If I have to pay $1.50 per thousand, which is
more than $50, I'm not going to get any additional benefit, especially since I'm on
a road that has never been declared a public road. I used to be for incorporation
when the process first started, but they have by being a one-sided board, and I
think there has been fraud done on the people of La Pine.
S WEARINGEN:
Can we get beyond LCAT? We have had staff look over this issue, and while I
have some questions on this, I can assure you that there hasn't been any fraud.
What they have done is put it for a vote; that's what this is all about. This is your
opportunity to vote on this in November.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 33 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
KRANSNOFF:
My biggest point is that anyone located on the west side of the river will not get
any more than they are paying for now for the next 10 to 20 years. If it is not in
the foreseeable future, then it isn't, as we can't look beyond that.
LUKE:
There's been some discussion on the size of the boundary. Would you have any
objection to being in the urban growth boundary if the city was all located on the
east side of the river?
KRANSNOFF:
I don't see anyone that lives in a development being against that. The growth for
the next 10 to 20 years will be in the core area and the new neighborhood.
MARY BORASH, 16227 Twin Dr., District 8:
I am anti-cityhood. I've gone through this before in another area. I don't see
where we need to have another government entity to support. I can't afford all of
these extra things, but I don't need anything. I have my road district 8 and all that
I need. Is the $1.50 per thousand administrative costs?
DEWOLF:
Administration is included in that. Very little of it is for actual administration.
If you decide to bring in the borderline to Burgess or wherever you decide and
eliminate the north end and district 8, how easy is it to annex? I hear that it is a
flick of a pen.
DEWOLF:
I don't think we have an answer to that question right now, because of the odd
nature of the bulk of the city being designed to be outside of the UGB. It is
definitely not the flick of a pen. It's a very complicated and lengthy process.
(Gave a lengthy statement about the City of Portland not having enough money
for fireworks; about the incorporation of Norco, California; the expense of
liability insurance; the bad economy; welfare recipients; the cost of sewer lines;
and a question about putting water meters on wells.)
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 34 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
DEWOLF:
Again, the only thing that we are considering here is the area of the boundaries.
There's nothing in this incorporation proposal that has anything to do with
metering wells. Do you have any evidence of any city anywhere putting meters
on private wells?
BORASCH:
They tried in one area.
DEWOLF:
There's nothing in anything that has been presented that has anything to do with
that. You are right that you will elect a city council, and they will be your
representatives, and if they make decisions that you disagree with, you can try to
put them out of office.
LISA BARSHOFSKY, 52375 Dorrance Meadow Road:
I represent 78.5 acres, population 3. I support my neighbors and want to do my
part to support my community; but I feel that when you start getting into these
special land use areas, we are being asked to pay more than our share of the bill,
especially since there is no evidence that we will see any benefit where we live.
In addition, you are asking me to pay taxes that in essence give them the right to
come in and tell me that they want my property. I spent years trying to get out of
the city, and chose La Pine for a specific reason; because Bend is thirty minutes
down the road, I could get a job there that would pay me a living wage, and I
could still have my rural lifestyle. Now I am being asked to put my land up in a
jeopardized position. We are asking that you please exclude us.
ROBERT BARSHOFSKY:
I agree with my wife 100%. One thing I've heard tonight is the concern over self-
government; being able to make decisions for the City of La Pine. I see no reason
why people in this community cannot come together, find individuals that want to
help make decisions and run for the council in Bend. There's one way to voice
our opinion. Let's put some people on the council and try to make things happen.
Another issue that was brought up tonight was bringing good, wage -paying jobs
into La Pine. Oregon put out a study a few months ago, and said that if you are
making less than $11 per hour, you are at the poverty level. You tell me what
kind of business is going to come to La Pine and start paying people over $12 per
hour.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 35 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
Most of us who came to this region actually had to take a pay cut, but came over
for a reason; to raise our family in a lifestyle where we don't have to worry about
gangs and other crimes, and raised around livestock. I ask the members tonight to
please think long and hard. There may be some benefits for a small majority of
people, but the remaining people are not going to reap much.
LARRY WALKER, 16213 Sparks Drive, Special Road District #8:
I would like to thank the BOCC and the LCAT for all their hard work, and want
to thank the audience members who are here. I feel it can be boiled down to a
fairly simply situation. I came up with four assumptions:
1. We all want what is best for La Pine.
2. The LCAT people feel that incorporation is in the best interest of the residents
of La Pine.
3. They feel they want to convince everybody that incorporation is in the best
interest of La Pine.
4. We all would like to keep La Pine as a friendly, peaceful, happy community.
What I see here tonight is quite different. There's a lot of divisiveness, a lot of
negative emotions, a lot of accusations, and that's not what we want. I would like
us see a resolution here that we can all be happy with, and feel like everyone is
being treated fairly. Many people feel that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". We've
heard that we won't really receive any of the benefits other than what we are
already receiving, and I'm happy with the services we have so far. I am all for
incorporation if that's what's best for the city.
But I don't feel I live in the city; I'm seven miles out in the country. I believe that
what needs to be done is to confine the boundaries to the area in which people
would receive benefits, give it a few years, and go from there.
Another perception is that our tax dollars are needed to make this work, that the
urban district is too small to afford to stand on its own. We've heard a lot about
local control. I don't think local is as important as qualifications and experience,
and I don't have any complaints with the type of services I've been receiving. I
feel we have freedom, and things are going well. Also, I don't feel that just
because we incorporate that businesses will beat a path to our door. I think that
will be a long period of steady growth. I'm from the country, and I like it that
way.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 36 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
LUKE:
You mentioned that you thought the boundaries should be redrawn. What would
your suggestion be?
WALKER:
Perhaps the river. The area that is legitimately the core, urban area.
JAMES FORT, 16101 Park Drive, Special Road District #8:
I have chaired the road district in the past, and have dealt with the Commissioners
in the past. I see no benefit coming from incorporation. My problem is with the
boundaries. I would like to see Road District #8 eliminated from the proposed
boundary. (Talked at length about problems with the County's snow plowing in
the district, especially during the bad snow years. Also talked at length about
bond issues, and taxes going higher and higher.) I'm against the boundaries as
they've been set, but I am not against incorporation.
JAN BOWMAN, West Drive:
I am concerned about whether people will be able to keep their animals if they
end up being incorporated. Also, many cities cannot afford to keep parks and the
cemetery maintained. And how are you going to control dust? And what about
the special election a year ago that raised taxes?
SWEARINGEN:
That was about three years ago, and that was a special levy to keep the Sheriff s
office operating and for hiring deputies.
BOWMAN:
(Complained about not being able to get a deputy out for a theft from a car).
SWEARINGEN:
That won't change with or without incorporation.
BOWMAN:
Why is Klamath County so much cheaper than Deschutes for taxes?
SWEARINGEN:
That is far too complicated a question to answer here. We would have to take a
look at their assessed valuation and what services they provide.
GEORGE PALMER:
I live outside of the boundary. I have been actively working with the
incorporation committee, and I think a local government would bring stability to
our fast-growing community.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 37 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
SYLVIA SHIELDS:
I don't live in the area that is set to be incorporated. I do serve on the community
action team. At this time, I would like to point out the fact that not everyone who
serves on the community action team is from Deschutes County. CAT district
spills over into north Klamath County, and there are two of us from north
Klamath County who serve on the CAT. George Palmer, who just spoke, is not
within the incorporation area, and he also serves on CAT. The incorporation
issue is being brought up simply so people can make a decision on whether they
want to do this.
I would like to thank the Commissioners for coming down here and spending all
this time listening to us, and I would like to urge them to follow the democratic
procedure. I'm proud of this country, and I would like to see this go on the ballot
so people will have a chance to voice their opinion on whether they want to
incorporate. As far as the boundary goes, a lot of work went into developing it.
Incidentally, I did not work on any of these committees in regard to incorporation,
as I did not feel it was my place since I don't live in the area. A lot of work went
into developing the boundary, but I feel the County Commissioners need to make
the final decision using the information they have gathered here today.
GLORIA BENZELL, 16170 Hooter, at the far end of Day Road:
We bought our property in 1984 and moved up here in March of 1992. We love
the area; it is God's country. It has welcomed us home. I am for the
incorporation for a lot of reasons, and this is just one of them. I am not happy
with where my taxes are going. I don't know where they are going. My county
taxes go up every year, and I can't see that we are getting that much in La Pine.
The road taxes, for instance. On my car alone, I pay about $65 to $75 per year in
gas taxes, which is a drop in the bucket. But you multiply that by every car in the
boundary area, and it is a lot of money. I can't see that I'm getting any benefit
from my gas tax.
I live 2/3 of a mile off Day Road. My road is not plowed or maintained in any
way unless we do it ourselves. Because of that, when it snows heavily we do not
have access to emergency services. And some of it goes to the Sheriffs
Department, but I haven't seen our Sheriffs Department's services enlarged. As a
senior citizen, I urge the Commissioners to think long and hard about these
boundaries. I know a lot of time has gone into developing them, and I urge you to
please let it go through as listed.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 38 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
JAY YOWELL, 15726 Lava Drive, Special Road District #8:
I have served as secretary of the district for almost four years. There has been so
much said tonight. I disagree with the boundaries. I don't disagree with the
incorporation. One person said it earlier that we need to crawl before we walk. If
you want to incorporate a small town, incorporate a small town east of the river
and see how it works.
My wife and I are retired, and we moved to La Pine because it is a rural, very
small community. We lived in Portland. We knew there was going to be dust in
La Pine, and gravel roads, and sometimes a lot of snow, but we moved here
anyway because we like this area. I disagree with the overall boundary that you
are proposing. Start small and make sure that it works before you jump in over
your head.
DAVID CONRAD, 16292 Lava Drive:
I want it on ballot, and urge you to back all of the petitioners who worked to get
this on the ballot. I am a health care professional, and am appalled about health
care in South County. It has declined drastically, lost 5 doctors recently. One-
third of the patients at St. Charles in Bend are from this area. It is difficult in the
winter for elderly to get around. For that reason alone I urge you to carry through
with this.
I thank Ms. Crume, one of the only members of the younger generation who
spoke, and who indicated she wants to come back to La Pine. We all want a place
for our kids to come back to and for future generations to come. The
Commissioners do a fair job, but BOCC doesn't truly represent the south county.
You don't live here, and you don't know what we are experiencing.
I moved here from Washington, D.C., knowing about the dust, snow, etc. I like
that people are friendly, and no matter how this turns out, let's not lose this. We
all moved here for small town, country feeling and I hope it will remain so.
I'm from Road District #8. I am hearing lots of negativity about it being
included. We have a fantastic road district, but it is more important to consider
future generations living in La Pine. Do not want to be withdrawn from the
incorporation boundary, and I urge you to put it on the ballot that way.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 39 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
HERB MCLANE, 53761 Day Road:
I live at the very north end of Day Road. Moved here because I was offered a job
in Chemult. Residents of the La Pine area should and must have an opportunity
to manage their own local affairs in the form of the incorporation of the
community. This incorporation is a natural maturation process of all
communities as they grow in size. It is also the model that has been presented to
us here in Oregon by our pioneer forefathers. That model is that a group of
people living in a locale taking on the legal responsibilities of as an incorporated
community known as a city. Here is a list of some of the challenges that we who
live in the La Pine area - and I think this boundary is very good - must meet and
resolve to mutual benefit of all.
Population density, and its affect on water quality, air quality, wildlife, unpaved
roads, general traffic flows, and local transportation all a major concern in this
area, and they affect us all if you've driven the roads in La Pine. Schools, youth
programs, and recreation resources are all-important issues that many people
moved to this area for, and incorporation would benefit. Law enforcement and
crime prevention, winter storm measures, medical needs and resources, senior
center and programs, including structure fire prevention and suppression,
wildland fire hazard reduction and suppression, our economic and social
development is critical to maintaining the quality of life that many of us in La
Pine enjoy, and it needs to be guided by people in the community.
I have attended many meetings involving issues in the community, and found that
there are many concerned members of the community expending their energy,
time and funds to better our community. I know that many of these people are
dedicated community -spirited people, but they are performing functions that are
overtaxing the volunteer/board system. We need to incorporate into the newest
city in Oregon and break our own trail to make a new and different kind of city.
The La Pine Community Action Team is an excellent example of the type of
leadership La Pine has, and will continue to need in the future. This diverse
group have built upon their commonalties and resolved some of their perceived
misconceptions about each other. They have asked La Pine residents to come
together to develop a community identity. The identity and vision of the
community has been created to help us maintain local control of the area.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 40 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
After reading and listening about the proposal, I believe that it will benefit
everyone within the proposed boundary and many of those outside the boundary.
The financial plan and tax rate is very reasonable and, most importantly, allows
the residents of the incorporated area to get state tax revenues for our area that we
could not get any other way. This will benefit all resident voters, businesses and
seasonal residents in increased value of their property, better services and
representation.
I'd like to support the ballot issue as presented. A lot of the issues I mentioned
are on the horizon, and I think as an individual my dollar does not go very far, but
together we will gain.
RANDY GORDON, 53474 Bridge Drive:
All of the issues in reference to the boundaries and incorporation have been
discussed, and I can't add to anything new that's been said. But all of the work
the LCAT has done has been presented, the petitions are signed, and what I want
now is just an opportunity to vote on this issue in November. I am raising two
boys, horses, pigs, chickens; and I think that now that the legal part of this is done
and the petitions are signed, let's all have our say on it with a vote in November.
NANCY THURSTON, 15745 Cornell Drive in Parkway Acres:
I own property in the core area as well, as well as in Parkway Acres near Road
District #8 in the far, northwest corner of the proposed incorporation area. If the
people in the core area of La Pine want to incorporate, I will support that.
However, I bought and built in Parkway Acres in part to get away from being in
anyone's city limits. I live eight miles from downtown La Pine.
I'm not sure why our 5 -acre parcels were included in the boundary plan. I know
of very few people in Parkway Acres who want to be a part of anyone's city
limits. Many came for a rural lifestyle for fewer restrictions and less bureaucracy.
Many of our properties are close to the national forest. How far away from a
town must a person live to escape being incorporated into someone's city limits?
And why should a more populated area with more available votes be allowed to
help decide our right to remain outside the proposed incorporated city.
There's been a lot of talk about incorporation helping to maintain our rural
lifestyle. But historically, this has been just the opposite. Repeatedly, once an
area becomes part of a city, things traditionally rural are decided by those in
power to no longer be appropriate. If we in our area are included in this
incorporation, how long will it be before the city fathers and mothers decide to
start interfering with our lifestyle.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 41 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
For us, incorporation could actually devalue our property, as many people looking
for a rural lifestyle do not want property within any city limits. For these and for
many other reasons, I respectfully request the Commissioners to exclude Parkway
Acres from the incorporation boundary.
PHIL CRUZ, 52559 Deer Field Road:
I thank the County Commissioners for coming down and LCAT and the citizens
of La Pine for their support and interest in this process. What we have here
already is a small town with growing pains. We've got problems to solve, and we
need to get ready for the future. It seems to me that with incorporation and the
boundary that has been looked at; we have more opportunities to solve these
problems and our growing pains now, especially if we work together.
I don't want to fault the Commissioners, but Deschutes County is a very complex
place to live and work, there are a lot of issues to deal with and to balance, and it
feels to me that maybe that workload is more complex, and it is very difficult to
juggle all areas of the county. Maybe we do need more local control, local
organization and local dollars to deal with the problems we have now and to build
our future. Local dollars would go farther versus being spread around the county.
We must look to the future much more proactively and get our kids to come back
to live here. I support incorporation, and like the boundaries that have been
proposed, and I know the Commissioners will do everything they can to factor
everything in and make the best possible decision.
I RN '4
You deal with resource land in your job. There has been some testimony about
resource lands inside city limits. Do you have any familiarity with this issue?
CRUZ:
As far as I know in the proposed boundary, there is no USFS land included,
although there is some forestry -zoned land and BLM land included. As I
understand it, BLM proposes that all or most of that land be available for trading
or sale for public purposes. They are working on a resource management plan
that would update, revise and support that kind of thing.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 42 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
MARY CASE, 146966 Junos, Gilchrist:
I've been reminded that I don't live here, but I volunteer in La Pine and spend all
my money in La Pine, and it's my town. I'm a volunteer on the LCAT team as
well. Everyone spent lots of hours on this. Several boundaries were discussed,
and it just wasn't feasible to use a smaller area for it to work. Please consider
letting it go on as it is.
MARYLON RUSSELL, 51636 Huntington Road:
I live right across the street from the Post Office. I am very much in favor of
incorporation. I wish all of you could have been present at the meeting when Dr.
Harness of the Clean Air Group came out and spoke about the dangers of the dust
in the air for people who have lung disease. It made an impression on me that in
ten years the $350,000 that we get from the gas tax can pave a lot of roads.
It's odd to me that some people would rather pay higher doctor bills than taxes.
People will not pay for a park district or schools, and it bothers me that they
won't do this. Before they moved to La Pine, they paid for these things because it
was already in the budget when they moved there. When they get old or sick, or
the winters get too severe for them, they will move to another area and pay for it
again. But they will not pay for it while they are here. They have denied my
children, my grandchildren and others a good park district and fair schools, and I
get tired of the people who complain about how things are run and being negative
about everything.
I have hardly ever missed an LCAT meeting, and I haven't seen these people there
asking these questions they say they've asked. We need more volunteers to help
out; where are they? We still have to raise our families; we want to have good
parks, schools, good roads and other amenities. We want our own city government.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
Can you explain the different boundaries?
PHILLIPS-MCLANE:
One is a feasibility study; the other is the economic feasibility statement that is
available in its entirety at the library, and is also available on the LCAT website,
users.bendnet/LCAT. One is a governance feasibility study that looks at the
different types of governments and the different sizes, done initially; and now
there's an economic feasibility statement that does describe the budget and the
services as proposed.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 43 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
Not all seniors are against this. I am 81 years old, and I support this.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
There's no way we'll ever get a senior center without this passing.
GEORGE PALMER:
Remember the people from Klamath County. Many people from Klamath
County said they are in favor but were of course unable to qualify since they
don't live here.
SWEARINGEN:
The record will be open until 5 p.m. Monday, June 19 at 5:00 p.m. for the
submission of written testimony.
DEWOLF:
I would like to get more information on any benefits that you think will be
provided to resource lands. I mean benefits that are specifically laid out in the
law.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
When will this all be decided?
SWEARINGEN:
It has to be decided by July 12th. You can safely assume that it will be certainly
be on the ballot; the question is whether the boundary will be as it has been
proposed.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
If boundaries change, how does that fit into the tax rate?
SWEARINGEN:
It depends on what is taken out, if anything. The rate is the same at $1.50, but
the total amount of money would be less. If we took out resource land they
would be off about 5%.
DEWOLF:
We have to be convinced there is benefit, and that it will hold up in a court of
law. We don't want this tied up in court.
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing Page 44 of 45 Pages
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:
Can they not incorporate unless they get all the tax money from the northern part?
DEWOLF:
This would certainly change things.
The following individuals had signed up to testify, but did not do so (either left the
meeting early or did not respond when called):
• Laura Jacobs, 16170 Eagles' Nest Road
• Stephanie Jacobs, 16170 Eagles' Nest Road
• Judy Myers, 16135 Blackfeather
• Art Chatham, 53333 Holiday Drive
• Jack Scruggs, 15792 Sparks Drive
• Robert E. Irving, 15878 Park Drive
• Grace Toole, 16367 Leona Lane
Chair Linda Swearingen adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Dated this 12th Day of June 2000 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
lnda L..,S*aringen, Chair
ATTEST:
FAFG'� M E W
Minutes of La Pine Incorporation Boundary Hearing
Monday Evening, June 12, 2000
R. Luke, Commissioner
Tom DeWolf, Commissioner
Page 45 of 45 Pages
Preliminary Statement
La Pine Incorporation Public Hearing
June 12, 2000
Introduction
This is a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners for Deschutes County on a
petition proposing incorporation of the City of La Pine and a tax rate limit for the
proposed city. I'm County Commissioner Linda Swearingen and with me hearing this
petition are my fellow Commissioners Dennis Luke and Tom DeWolf.
I will now turn this matter over to County staff to make an introductory statement.
Staff Introductory Comments
The intent of this introductory statement is to inform those wishing to participate in this
hearing what the issues are and the manner in which these proceedings will be conducted.
Summary of Proposal and Issues
The proposal is included in a petition to the Board of County Commissioners to form the
City of La Pine and to adopt a tax rate limit of $1.50 per thousand dollars of valuation.
The proposed boundary is shown on the maps that are on display in the auditorium.
Smaller copies of the map have been distributed in this hearing room and are available
from staff.
The Board of County Commissioners must determine whether to place the question of
city formation and the tax rate limit for the proposed city on the ballot. The purpose of
this hearing is for interested parties to offer comments on the formation of the city, the
estimated rate of taxation set forth in the petition and whether the Board of County
Commissioners should alter the boundaries of the proposed city to either include omitted
property that would be benefited by formation of the city or to exclude property that is
proposed to be included that would not benefit from inclusion within the proposed city.
The actual issues that present decision points for the board are more narrow than that:
They are two: 1) Whether the proposal is consistent with the statewide land use planning
goals and 2) Whether the boundaries should be modified so that only benefited property
is included within the boundaries.
The County Clerk has verified that the legally required number of signatures — 20% of
the voters registered in the area proposed to be incorporated -- have signed incorporation
petitions to bring this matter to a hearing. The petitions and the Clerk's verification will
be made a part of the record of this hearing.
Hearing Process
Any interested person may appear and be heard during this hearing. A person wishing to
testify need not be a registered voter within the boundaries of the proposed city nor be a
property owner within the boundaries of the proposed city. Testimony may be presented
orally or it may be presented in writing. The board will read all written testimony before
it makes its decision. The board has received written testimony prior to this hearing. All
that testimony will be made a part of the record and will be listed during the staff report.
If you wish to testify, you must sign up, giving your name and address, on the yellow
sign-up cards that have been placed at the entrance to the hearing room and that have
been distributed to the audience. You must return the cards to the Board's recording
secretary Bonnie Baker, or you will not be called to testify.
A record of this proceeding is being made by audiotape. We will need you to testify at
the microphone so that your comments can be captured on the audiotape. Please state
your name for the record and give your address before you start your testimony.
The order of the proceeding after this introductory statement will be as follows:
1. Staff will make a presentation summarizing the proposal and commenting on any
issues that staff deems to warrant further attention. Staff will introduce and list the
contents of the record as it now stands.
2. The incorporation proponents will make a presentation.
3. Members of the general public who have signed up will be allowed to testify in the
order in which their sign-up cards were received.
4. Staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments.
Depending upon the number of persons who sign up to testify the board reserves the right
to limit the time of presentations. If necessary, the Board may decide at the end of this
hearing today to hold the record open for additional oral or written testimony.
Testimony should be directed to the issues and the criteria identified in the staff report
and the hand-out.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the board's discretion.
If any person wishes a question to be asked of any person during that person's
presentation, you should direct such questions to the chair after being recognized. The
Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness.
Pre -hearing Contacts
The nature of these proceedings is primarily legislative, but has been described by courts
to have attributes of a quasi-judicial nature. To be safe, we will adopt some of the
r
procedural safeguards that are ordinarily observed in quasi-judicial proceedings to ensure
that the Commissioners are able to make a fair decision in this proceeding.
We need to determine whether any member of the Board has had any pre -hearing
contacts concerning the incorporation, the proposed tax rate or the boundary of the
proposed city.
If any member or the Board has had any pre -hearing contacts concerning the
incorporation, the proposed tax rate or the boundary of the proposed city, now is the time
to state generall the substance of those pre -hearing contacts so that all persons present at
this hearing can be fully advised of the nature and context of those contacts and with
whom contact was made. Are there any contacts that need to be disclosed?
(Disclosure of any ex -parte contacts.)
Any person in the audience has the right during the hearings process to rebut the
substance of any communication or observation that has been placed in the record. Does
anybody in the audience wish to rebut any of the ex -parte contacts that have reported by
the members of the board?
Hearing no response to the Board's record of ex -parte contacts, we will now proceed to
open the hearing with the staff report.
Fx ", t A �, 3-o f s
STAFF REPORT
Nature of the Decision
The ultimate decision the Board will need to make resulting from this hearing will be
whether to refer the incorporation of a new city and a proposed tax rate limit to the
electors of the proposed district at the next biennial primary or general election date that
is not sooner than 90 days after the date of the Board's decision. This Board does not
have the authority to order formation of the city nor the adoption of any proposed tax rate
limit without a vote of the people.
If the Board determines from the evidence presented that it will refer the question of
incorporation and tax rate limit to the ballot, it will need to enter its written order by July
12, 2000 in order to meet deadlines for the November 2000 ballot.
Relevant Issues
As mentioned in the opening statement, the incorporation statute requires a hearing
before the Board can reach the ultimate question of whether to refer this matter to the
electorate.
The statute summarizes the issues to be addressed as follows:
(1) Whether the proposed city should be formed;
(2) The adequacy of the estimated tax rate; and
(3) Whether to alter the proposed boundaries so that (a) all property that would benefit
would be included in the proposed city, including any property that may have been
excluded; and (b) only property that benefits is included in the city, which may
require that certain property be excluded from the in order to exclude territory that
would not include all territory that may be benefited by incorporation of a city.
Not all of these issues outlined in the statute present decision points for the board in
determining whether to place the incorporation question on the ballot.
The formation of a city is in large part a political matter. Given that a sufficient number
of petitions have been filed with the clerk seeking incorporation, the Board of County
Commissioners' role in dealing with the formation petition is a limited one. The Oregon
Supreme Court has held that the Board cannot make a decision that no property would be
benefited by the incorporation and then decline to refer the petition to the ballot. The
court has held that such a decision would frustrate the will of those desiring a vote on
incorporation.
In essence, the board has two and only two decision points:
• The board must determine whether the proposal is compatible with the statewide land
use planning goals. This is the only set of criteria that the board could use to deny the
petition in its entirety. The question presented to the board is whether it is
reasonably likely that the newly incorporated city — if the election is successful — can
and will comply with the statewide land use planning goals once the city assumes
primary planning responsibility for the incorporated area.
• Second, the board must determine whether the boundary of the proposed city should
be adjusted. The Board may modify the boundary to include lands not included that
would benefit from inclusion within the proposed city. The Board must exercise its
judgment to determine whether there are lands within the boundary that will not be
benefited. On that basis the Board can adjust the boundary, but it cannot substitute its
judgment on this basis for whether the petition can be approved to send the matter to
an election.
Because of the nature of the decision on what is property is benefited is legislative in
character, the standard guiding the board's decision on this question is whether it's
decision could be viewed as being arbitrary — or unsupported by reason.
Record
The record in this case currently includes the following:
• All the various petitions that were submitted by proponents of incorporation;
• The Clerk's verification of those signatures as meeting the requirements of ORS
221.040;
• The 52 -page proposed findings document submitted by the La Pine Community
Action Team on May 24, 2000;
• A proposed order submitted by the proponents;
• A May 20, 2000, letter from the Ponderosa Pines East subdivision property owners
opposing incorporation, including numerous petitions against including the
Ponderosa Pines East subdivision;
• A May 25, 2000, letter from 130 residents of Special Road District #8 opposing
incorporation;
• Identical letters from James Williams, Creagh Williams, Calvin and Marieca Haight,
Walter and Doris Martin opposing incorporation;
• Bulletin Affidavit of Publication for publication of notice of hearing;
• Affidavit of Posting by Jill Phillips -McLane of notice of the hearing;
• Media Release concerning the incorporation hearing.
These documents are included in three notebooks labeled "La Pine Incorporation
Hearing, Volumes I — III." These notebooks are hereby entered in the hearing record.
In addition, the following letters have been received today by staff-
Finally,
taffFinally, the maps of the proposed incorporation area that are displayed here are included.