Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2006-804-Order No. 2006-128 Recorded 8/8/2006
REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKDS ~J X406.804 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL , V01VOINVO OZ,V1,01 PM BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Approving the Petition for Incorporation of the Proposed City of La Pine ORDER NO. 2006-128 WHEREAS, a petition for incorporation of the City of La Pine was filed on June 20, 2006, pursuant to ORS chapter 221 and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, the Deschutes County Clerk issued the Clerk's Certification of the signatures on the petition sheets for the petition, and WHEREAS, ORS 221.040(2) provides that, upon the filing of a petition for incorporation, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ("Board") shall conduct a public hearing upon the merits of the petition; and WHEREAS, ORS 197.175(1) says the Board's consideration of a petition to incorporate a new city an exercise of County planning and zoning responsibility; and WHEREAS, ORS 221.040(2) authorizes the Board to alter the boundaries of the proposed city to include all territory that may be benefited by the formation of the city and requires the Board to exclude territory by the inclusion in the proposed city, and WHEREAS, the County must provide owners and residents of property within such additional territory notice and opportunity to present evidence and argument on the applicable issues; and WHEREAS, the Board, upon notice posted in the The Bulletin on July 18 and July 26, 2006 and posted at the Deschutes County South County Services Building, the Deschutes County Services Building in Bend, at the Deschutes County Clerk's office and at the Deschutes County Courthouse, conducted the required public hearing on the proposed petition on August 7, 2006, and WHEREAS, after taking testimony at the hearing, the Board closed the hearing, and WHEREAS, the Board has considered all of the written and oral testimony and argument submitted concerning the proposed incorporation, and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that no additional territory other than what was proposed with the petition would be benefited by the proposed city, and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that none of the properties proposed in the petition to be included within the proposed city boundaries should be excluded from the city boundaries; WHEREAS, the November 7, 2006 is the next regular election that is not sooner than 90 days after the date of this order; now, therefore, PAGE 1 of 3- ORDER No. 2006-128 (08/07/06) THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The petition for an election on the proposed city of La Pine, with boundaries as proposed in the petition, attached to Order No. 2006-117 and incorporated by reference herein, is hereby granted. Section 2. The name of the city shall be the City of La Pine and the boundaries shall be as legally described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map Exhibit "B," both exhibits being attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. The proposed City of La Pine, if formed, will have a permanent tax rate limit for operating taxes of $1.98 per $1,000 assessed value that will raise an estimated $60,000 in operating funds for the District in the 2007-2008 fiscal year, although the permanent tax rate, if fully levied, could raise an estimated $150,480 in the same fiscal year. Section 4. Legal Counsel shall mail before the close of business on August 7, 2006 a copy of this order, including exhibits, to the chief petitioners and other parties to these proceedings. Section 5. This decision shall become effective upon mailing of the documents listed in Section 3. Section 6. In support of the decision set forth in Section 1 of this order, the Board makes the findings and conclusions set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein Section 7. The election relating to the incorporation of the proposed City of La Pine shall be held by mail at the 2006 General Election. Section 8. Prior to August 28, 2006, the County Legal Counsel shall prepare for Board approval, the ballot title for the election ordered in Section 6 above and shall include on the ballot a description of the boundaries of the proposed City of La Pine using streets and other generally recognized features and a statement of the tax rate included in the petition for incorporation of the proposed City of La Pine in compliance with the requirements of 221.040. 2006 Section 9. Legal Counsel submit the approved ballot title to the County Clerk on or before August 28, Section 10. Upon receipt of the approved ballot title, the Deschutes County Clerk is hereby directed to place this matter on the November 7, 2006, general election ballot. elected. Section 11. At the election ordered in Section 6 of this order, five City Council members shall be PAGE 2 of 3- ORDER No. 2006-128 (08/07/06) Section 12. As soon as possible, the County Legal Counsel shall prepare a notice of City Council election. The notice shall be filed with the County Clerk. DATED this day of '2006. U BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: -fl'm Recording Secretary I HAEL DALXommissioner PAGE 3 of 3- ORDER No. 2006-128 (08/07/06) BEV CLARNO, Vice Chair -V ES LU A 0 AA"A - < Assessor's Office Scot Langton, Assessor 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6508 - Fax (541) 330.4629 www. co. deschutes. on us August 8, 2006 Carolyn Sunderman Oregon Department of Revenue Cadastra) Information Systems Unit PO Box 14380 Salem, OR 97309-5075 Re: La Pine Incorporation Carolyn, Attached please find an copy of the description for the proposed boundary of La Pine, Oregon. Also enclosed please find a GIS generated map showing the tie points to various sixteenth corners which will become part of my file available for public inspection. The description is complete and accurately describes the area to be incorporated and meets my approval. I recommend final approval by DOR on this basis. Sincerely, ego a s Chief grapher Deschu County, Oregon Exhibit A, Page 1 LA PINE CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED 2006 LA PINE CITY LIMITS A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 35 AND 36 OF TOWNSHIP 21 SOUTH, RANGE 10 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON; SECTIONS 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 AND 15 OF TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 10 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON; AND SECTION 7 OF TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 11 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36), ALSO BEING COMMON TO SECTIONS TWENTY-SIX (26), TWENTY-FIVE (25), AND SECTION THIRTY- FIVE (35), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-ONE (21) SOUTH, RANGE TEN (10) EAST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36), SOUTH 89° 10'08" EAST, 2563.61 FEET, TO THE NORTH ONE-QUARTER (1/4) CORNER BETWEEN SAID SECTIONS TWENTY-FIVE (25) AND SAID SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 89° 38' EAST, 2614.24 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION THIRTY SIX (36); THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36), SOUTH 00° 50' 58" EAST, 2638.14 FEET, TO THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 00° 51' 21" EAST, 2636.61 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36), SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION ONE (1), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-TWO, (22) SOUTH, RANGE TEN (10) EAST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION ONE (1) 5280 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION ONE (1), SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION SEVEN (7), TOWNSHIP TWENTY TWO (22), SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN (11) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION SEVEN (7), NORTH 89° 31' 58" EAST, 2426.70 FEET TO THE NORTH ONE-QUARTER (1/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION SEVEN (7); THENCE ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION SEVEN (7), SOUTH 00° 00' 12" EAST, 3,980.90 FEET TO THE CENTER SOUTH ONE-SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SW1/4 SE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION SEVEN (7), SOUTH 89° 51' 05 EAST, 1331.78 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST ONE SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER OF SAID SECTION SEVEN (7); THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER, SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER QUARTER SOUTH 00° 24' 44" WEST, 1324.02 FEET TO THE EAST ONE SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS SEVEN (7) AND SECTION EIGHTEEN (18), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-TWO (22) SOUTH, RANGE ELEVAN (11) EAST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION SEVEN (7),NORTH 89° 45' 11" WEST, 3,748.42 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION SEVEN (7), BEING THE CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTION SEVEN (7) AND SAID SECTION EIGHTEEN (18), AND SECTION CORNERS TWELVE (12), AND THIRTEEN (13), TOWNSHIP TWENTY TWO SOUTH (22), RANGE TEN (10) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF SECTION SEVEN (7) AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION TWELVE (12), WESTERLY 3960 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE WEST ONE SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS TWELVE (12) AND SECTION THIRTEEN (13); THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE AND ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION THIRTEEN (13), SOUTH 00° 15' 37" Exhibit A - Order 2006-128 Page 2 of 5 EAST, 2628.83 FEET TO THE CENTER WEST ONE SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER OF SAID SECTION THIRTEEN (13); THENCE ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION THIRTEEN (13), SOUTH 00° 15' 08" EAST, 2,636.76 FEET, TO THE WEST ONE SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTION THIRTEEN (13) AND SECTION TWENTY-FOUR (24), TOWNSHIP TWENTY TWO SOUTH (22), RANGE TEN (10) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION THIRTEEN (13), SOUTH 89° 32' 39" WEST, 1,295.01 FEET TO THE SECTION CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTION THIRTEEN (13), AND SECTIONS FOURTEEN (14), TWENTY-THREE (23) AND TWENTY-FOUR (24) OF TOWNSHIP TWENTY TWO SOUTH (22), RANGE TEN (10) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOURTEEN (14), SOUTH 89° 47' WEST, 2,611.62 FEET, TO THE SOUTH ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION FOURTEEN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF SECTION FOURTEEN (14), NORTH 89° 41' WEST, 2,597.76 FEET TO THE SECTION CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTION FOURTEEN (14), FIFTEEN AND SECTIONS (15), TWENTY-TWO (22) AND TWENTY-THREE (23) OF TOWNSHIP TWENTY TWO SOUTH (22), RANGE TEN (10) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FIFTEEN (15), NORTH 89° 37' 36" WEST 1308.26 FEET TO THE EAST ONE SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER BETWEEN SAID SECTIONS FIFTEEN (15) AND TWENTY TWO (22); THENCE ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION FIFTEEN (15), NORTH 00° 29' 31" EAST 1,334.85 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST ONE SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER OF SAID SECTION FIFTEEN (15); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH- SOUTH CENTERLINE, NORTH 00° 13' 14" EAST 1255.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SIXTH STREET AS DESCRIBED IN THAT DEED RECORDED IN VOLUME 290 PAGE 150, DESCHUTES COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH- SOUTH CENTERLINE AND ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE 235.80 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF 1402.50 FOOT RADIUS NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE LONG CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 70°47' 17" WEST 235.52 FEET TO THE EAST-WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION FIFTEEN; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND ALONG SAID THE EAST-WEST CENTERLINE OF SECTION FIFTEEN, SOUTH 89° 41' 16" WEST, 1085.68 FEET TO THE CENTER ONE-QUARTER (1/4), CORNER OF SAID SECTION FIFTEEN (15); THENCE ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION FIFTEEN (15), NORTH 00° 14' 38" EAST 1316.31 FEET TO THE CENTER NORTH ONE-SIXTEEN (1/16), CORNER OF SAID SECTION FIFTEEN (15); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH- SOUTH CENTERLINE, NORTH 00° 14'30" EAST, 1,316.28 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTION FIFTEEN (15) AND SECTION TEN (10) TOWNSHIP TWENTY TWO SOUTH (22), RANGE TEN (10) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF "FIRST ADDITION TO LA PINE" NORTH 01° 20' 30" WEST, 1334.85 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID "FIRST ADDITION TO LA PINE; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID "FIRST ADDITION TO LA PINE" SOUTH 88° 57'20" EAST, 1309 FEET MORE OF LESS TO THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE SOUTH EAST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE AND ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SOUTH EAST ONE- QUARTER, NORTH 00° 29' 33' WEST, 984 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 OF SAID SECTION 10 AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT TITLED "DEPENDENT RESURVEY, SUBDIVISION OF SECTIONS 10 AND 11, AND METES-AND- BOUNDS SURVEYS", ACCEPTED BY THE DIRECTOR, USDI, BLM, ON MAY 28, 2004 AND FILED AT THE DESCHUTES COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE AS SURVEY CS16296; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE, NORTH 00° 36' 11" WEST, 329.67 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID Exhibit A - Order 2006-128 Page 3 of 5 GOVERNMENT LOT 2, NORTH 89° 57' 59" EAST, 662.97 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID 2004 BLM SURVEY; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1, NORTH 01° 29' 03" WEST, 322.51 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 SOUTH 89° 58'25" EAST, 661.98 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 ON THE WEST LINE OF SECTION ELEVEN (11), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-TWO (22), SOUTH, RANGE TEN (10) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTION TEN (10) AND SECTION ELEVEN (11), NORTH 01° 39'46" WEST, 965.53 FEET TO THE NORTH ONE SIXTEENTH (1/16) CORNER OF SAID SECTION TEN (10) AND SECTION ELEVEN (11); THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, NORTHWEST QUARTER, (SW1/4, NW1/4), OF SAID SECTION ELEVEN (I1), NORTH 89° 53' 12" EAST, 1329.65 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST ONE-SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER OF SAID SECTION ELEVEN (11); THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, NORTHWEST QUARTER, (SE1/4, NW1/4), OF SAID SECTION ELEVEN (11), NORTH 89° 54' 21" EAST, 90.60 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF HUNTINGTON ROAD, SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE BEING 30.00 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF HUNTINGTON ROAD AS SURVEYED IN THE 2001 "PLAT OF SURVEY" FILED AS SURVEY CS14655 IN THE DESCHUTES COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUNTINGTON ROAD NORTH 36° 26'35" EAST, 572.89 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 564.32 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 1,402.39 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 24° 54' 55" EAST, 560.52 FEET), TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 13° 23' 15" EAST, 3,010.46 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 50.49 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 788.51 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 11 ° 33' 12" EAST, 50.48 FEET), TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION TWO (2), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-TWO (22), SOUTH, RANGE TEN (10) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF HUNTINGTON ROAD, SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE BEING 30.00 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF HUNTINGTON ROAD AS SURVEYED IN THE 1977 DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS SURVEY MAP ENTITLED "PENGRA-HUNTINGTON E-2" ON FILE AT THE DESCHUTES COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, 261.76 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 778.51 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, (THE LONG CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 00° 30'52" EAST, 260.53 FEET), TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 09° 07' 05" WEST, 699.14 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 359.44 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 2,261.38 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 04- 33' 52" WEST, 359.06 FEET), TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE- QUARTER, NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, (SW1/4 NEIA), OF SECTION TWO (2), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-TWO (22), SOUTH, RANGE TEN (10) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF HUNTINGTON ROAD AND ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER, NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, (SW1/4 NE1/4), NORTH 89° 11' WEST, 250.14 FEET TO THE CENTER NORTH ONE-SIXTEENTH (1/16) CORNER, OF SAID SECTION TWO (2); THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER, (NE1/4 NW1/4), OF SAID SECTION TWO (2), NORTH 89° 11' WEST, 1236.15' FEET TO THE NORTH WEST ONE- SIXTEENTH (1/16) CORNER; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER, (NW 1/4 NW1/4), OF SAID SECTION TWO, NORTH 89° 11' WEST, 1236.15' FEET TO THE NORTH ONE-SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTION TWO (2) AND SECTION THREE (3), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-TWO (22) SOUTH, RANGE TEN (10) EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE Exhibit A - Order 2006-128 Page 4 of 5 ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER, (NW 1/4 NW1/4), NORTH 2° 16' 58" WEST, 1332.13 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION TWO (2) AND THE CORNER COMMON SAID SECTION THREE (3) AND SECTION THIRTY-FOUR (34) AND SECTION THIRTY FIVE (35) OF TOWNSHIP TWENTY-ONE (21) SOUTH, RANGE TEN (10), EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION THIRTY FIVE (35), NORTH 2° 22' 13" EAST, 51 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF BURGESS ROAD; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY 2451 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION THIRTY FIVE (35); THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY AND ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-FIVE (35), NORTH 01° 40'22" EAST, 1,246.58 FEET TO THE CENTER SOUTH ONE-SIXTEENTH (1/16), CORNER OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-FIVE (35); THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SW 1/4 SE 1/4), OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-FIVE, SOUTH 89° 21' 30" EAST, 814.69 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HUNTINGTON ROAD, SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE BEING 30.00 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF HUNTINGTON ROAD AS SURVEYED IN THE NOVEMBER 1971 DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS MAP ENTITLED "PORTION OF PENGRA-HUNTINGTON" ON FILE AT THE DESCHUTES COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF HUNTINGTON ROAD 656.84 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 3,849.72 FOOT RADIUS NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 23° 41'53" EAST, 656.05 FEET), TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 28°35' 10" EAST, 156.68 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 305.89 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 5,699.58 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 27° 02' 55" EAST, 305.85 FEET), TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 25° 30' 40" EAST, 69.30 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE 249.57 FEET MORE OR LESS ALONG THE ARC OF A 34,400.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 25° 43'08" EAST, 249.57 FEET MORE OR LESS), TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 1/4 NE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF HUNTINGTON ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF "LAZY RIVER SOUTH", NORTH 27° 10' 27" EAST, 500.80 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 403.52 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 2,911.21 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 31 ° 08'42" EAST 403.19 FEET), TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 35° 06'57" EAST, 108.10 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 496.85 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 5,885.85 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 31° 25' 58" EAST, 496.05 FEET), TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 30° 24' 17" EAST, 289.70 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 240.73 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 704.77 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 20° 37' 10" EAST, 239.56 FEET), TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 10° 50' 02" EAST, 594.05 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 258.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 1,779.13 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 14° 59' 28" EAST, 257.95 FEET), TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY AT THE INTERSECTION OF SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION THIRTY FIVE (35), OF TOWNSHIP TWENTY- ONE (21) SOUTH, RANGE TEN (10), EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY AND ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 89° 11' 14" EAST, 31.63 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-FIVE (35), SAID CORNER ALSO BEING COMMON TO SECTIONS TWENTY-SIX (26), TWENTY-FIVE (25), AND SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36), OF TOWNSHIP TWENTY-ONE (21) SOUTH, RANGE Exhibit A - Order 2006-128 Page 5 of 5 TEN (10), EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. NOTE: THIS DESCRIPTION IS BASED UPON RECORDED BOUNDARY SURVEYS AND AVAILABLE MAPS ON RECORD AT THE DESCHUTES COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE AND THE DESCHUTES COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT. Approved (Z:rgor3 ,B es Chief Cartographer Deschutes County, Oregon Exhibit A - Order 2006-128 Page 6 of 5 -NORTH,DR w w _ o o z N - W O LU. LL m U1 LU z a -CAGLERD ~ a T 0 ~J2 w w .o: W Wickiu _ a z o Junctio z ~ fn BURGESS RD BUf?GES ' S,Rp -EROS ELENA LN ;i A N =n cn N O Cn ~N ~-J Ez t i Proposed Boundary of the City of La Pine DATE: August 7, 2006 Copyright © 2006 by Deschutes County, Oregon. All Rights Reserved. Prir Exhibit B to Order. 2006=1.48 : Page 1 of q PROPOSED FORMATION OF CITY OF ALA PINE , August 2, 2006 ....91L'~INB 6- _.SS'g._. ...g eY~M6- ON! ~.d"~g. yg 91N. Page 1 of2;~; l ' I t my iM O.H. (1B..... _N a~° g [ }Tr "N V1 F6 _..C, 6 N aq Wa1 ( y T:. I 1. ....C g.. .f.yf1/ C .E_ tr W try _S411 t °~SE _S 46.. 5+~16._ e "-Ff`_~ ( t 2110; 2111 f I Burgess Rd ' it I ±6 - NE1/16 2210 2211 .18 u:Nti46 ---NWiI16- _,C-Nit16- - NE,1M 8.. H` _N,~~, 6. ..C 1 N 6.. _ p_[1 6 C, i~ 6. ...E 4. - 4 6- _ "t E' ..C_g ,.C. A =-i C 6 C-;1618 4fi6- 6- - 1116 -SE1116 a g'1~ SW Yff6- . O-S YN6.... SE 1'.6 6,.. See age 2 aL 1 w 106__.__. Nsv4----.-"'^E,M~. -s t 1116, .._..NV76 NW hh6-. C-N 1116 -H F1 jHfi. NJS6 N1HYE16.. -C-N ~ g. ...N(jAg A 6- C f.W 111 - W E-p A 16 f - O-E 1M8' E N11 r.0.W 1H6 _ -E 1f16 - fi'~PI- -C 19Vi1 8 - -C-y"y8- -E { i r S 6 o"i Nffl %16 O-9'1116_. - 9E 1116 f.. - n„~ ~ 31!76 - -SW 1116--- 64$hC'f6 - 8E 7116 -5 46 - -SVI MN I I ~ { I F . I ! 1 ` I i N10VNI16- O 616 NEi/`f6 X16... NAG L f ( I I T6.... ~IJ,H6 Ni'Af)i 0. ~ Z ~ p . Q b Jr rMMIMMM ~I Miles 6~ y LEY BUTTE 6- - -f _C4.6 14._. _ Proposed City of La Pine E 4 I ~ . i - Stete Route Rivers Urban Collector 91 8- 0 116 9E S; 'b StY1M6 C M6 ..5E /16.. ...31116... g......_.C.6d: ........9 .SIlg. ._.3,. $lreel5 N i I 0 Section Comers 1 4 r. i PLSS Township t Quadrant _..w.... Section y. 6 - r ; 6 ._.._..N 6- ~ 'p ~ _..K G- _ -N16 C41 16 NE ' g ~ _ S N N"C..'•, 1411 N1pf~M 6- - e1116.... - 4 6. Sixteenth DISCLAIMER: The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Deschutes County's G.I.S. I r Care was taken in the creation of this map, but it is provided "as is". Deschutes County cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital 0 2006 All Copyright v by Deschutes County, Oregon. data or the underlying records. There are no warranties, express or implied, including the 4- -0Y6 , Rights Reserved. . Pr Printed in the United States of America. warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. Exhibit B to Order 2006-128 Page 2 of 9 PRO D EORMAnON OF CITY OF LA PINE { August 2, 2006 Page 2 of 2 =y { 23. NORTH 0,1° 20' 30" WEST, 1334.85 FEET MORE OR LESS j J 24. SONT 88'° 57' 20- EAST, 009 FEET MORE OF LESS % 25. NORTB 00`° 29' 33' WEST, 984 $SET MORE OR LESS 26. NORTH 0,0° 36' 11" WEST, 329.61 FEET 27. NORTU 89° 57' 59" EAST, 562.97 FEET - 2$ . i~fiOR,TS 010 29' 03" WEST, 3,2.2.51 FEET 31 29. SOD" 890 58' 25^ EAST, 641.98 FEET N 16 30. NOR" 01° 39' 46" WEST, 965.53 FEET { { { { 5 24 4s c= 14 sal s { { 4 4.48 4..1 Q.i$ 4.2 Nines F ~vrepeeseckyataA,. + s Stela Rasa socbmCerrms 3 { PM ' t ti 7ownNYp gym: ' Oudmd - N E 1/16 SL%I"rn The siamabon on dit map was aerivd from aiam aembwes on oasa.Ae. a ©L8. . Care was taken to the seat on of this map but i s provtded'as id. Deschutes CalMy z l ! Copyright 02006 by Dvwh" C0", Oregon. rarrma a~ errors ambNoro. or positlonal modesty In the i w , AN ft ft Reserved Prkded In the UnRed elates ofAmadca data or the undMAV records. There ew no wanantm express or knptied, kxidktp the . 3. s . File: NicwwmlCaseylw *A" warranty o rrrendfarttaDAlly or thew fora pwft* r purpoq. aaonlparrykq qtb P vmd Mappm: OW HermeMIS Analyst However, rwhTcadm a any errors will be appreciated. Exhibit B to Urcler 2UUb-1LZ5 Page 3 of 9 4Y♦N- ~ C7C'"x~ 8 O' 1 i i i a 9 O X Sse Mao a 9 .w A i l aN I F YP I' 1 fN I E P I Iw 1 tN I S [A 1 i~" 1 9 17- N 1 iw iN y- = ~v ~'P 1 ru YP ' I H P pN LA P N (fl ' O 1 w i H I ~N I Q $ N 1 H $ N 00 0 O I S $ w I I YY 1_ to F_- P P j iw N N N N MJ $ N y N O 0 I O m N o y m_ 3 m 2 o y m yN 1 F-_ n x b ; ° S $ $ P P ° I 1. u N N 17 g s Frw N M k I m N y N y y N y N y N l i A k O D " IM m n m R m N N m m ~ m ; C I = w ' D ° V w O 9R; d 25 N m D li 9 O D v 01 A m I 'w $ • ~ A O $ N N N N N m N ° ( N ° m m ii m m m o m m o m - oo =N .o O m o m m o 1 a r, m D m D g D N D 1~ 1 i N' 8 i P I IV y m N to N y m N m N y m N to m L. y m N= A P a p 0 T m 3 m 3 0 m 3 0 m 3 et m 3 0 K m ( a~ m o m - m A N m m N y N m N m N y m In m N y P ° ^ A ° _ ° m b ° m g m ° 3 a m 3 00 ° to 'O. o ~ ~ n~ ~ o D~ $ 9 N ° g sYm S N m m N y m N w m u y m N y m P I }:o ° _ O m m m \ A G o O m o N 9 - N V y I w N F + m N , j SCH N y N . N 0 ° m o O mV N O m 0 f m =.s ° r o f O I I " r-- v ~ p v 9~ D V <"1 D ' "a N P _ m O L F1Y a9 m ` v N 0 * § . ~ ° m m- , 5 m m Y p o 8 P d 3 N F 8 - - ° o )t C N ry > o m N y tn o § § _ p P 8 o o N N m_~ it a, O O O O A" mo, la O S.* Mao 21 11 I; K 1 ~v d 1 Y~ R 0 = N C U} M > cn n O O m --1 8 wY~? ii 0 8~i8 A ~w2 ru o8yN~A $ J~ ~ -2 Nc 0 9D Z N X O Exhibit B to Order 2006-128 Page 4 of 9 Z m i IN ~m N 0 m W Ul D Exhibit B to Order 2006-128 Page 5 of 9 N O W W D A: Q+ CA m m CA N E) m z0 c' W m cn 0 C-) N Ot c' Z O m 3 N O W N O SEE MAP p. 10 36C Exhibit B to Order 2006-128 Page 6 of 9 N O W N O 1 . T2.~?~. R.IO E W M 102 10241 In~ ??9 725 deal cumbers 2C4 thr,j b;' , 3 •►hiu 22~J, 301 400, 500 601, 2 10 . . DESCHUTES COUNTY 2'050 thru°L8o0 2804 °4' 200000'tnru 21200 I 2000' , 00 th u 3300, 3500 thru 2 9 3511, 3701, 3`(00 & INDEX See Map 21 10 0 0 6 ROSLA 299 I 1 Q N Alf- x I w 4r~ SEE MAP SEE MAP 45 •sE z 40 r 402s . .09 a!- I 1 s. i -c z ~ O - - - - 22 10 4A 22 10 38 ~ ~s . l.•..ic 224 N ' "t W - 09 A W 4 0 C i-ar /zGR29 /-aR s+199.3~ wc• ~ ii. s .27 2 ~ /-4 1111. r . '1 yt d:oo V aS ~t i r a c. a 100 /-Ito 83.02 wG - r4 rti74'C . LD7. j (L ie + ~ "j7JIl M - N !>♦1~+,C V ~ Q ~ ` ~ SEE MAP Q M A. - : t4 " s K ~ PTN _ o _ _ ~ ,.l s I°~ - !rM'are. . •s„•, r . 22 10 4D W - W 22 I a 's, a w100 ~ to N f.G ( 'r~- ~J1~ ..sa~. _ 1 (I.-A'sl as b•zl•..• I N b' , w Lo ' 1 O 1600 i1 ~f /'a•s° 1rE: 1600. . . L Yf. 1u.yfJ: rc.; ql..3 • 4' E 225 I (1 -111) IOOQ 1.7 100 ` i . ~b4 I g!b - 4 , r 7 wa oo4.T s Too. r isil 'br E,n 100 1100 _ \ o r r N °208 SEE MAP 107 12 ; - I t iA5.7 ~.a r 2 K J a o 22-10-,11 11Ar /?j.s c' -a-er ab az - i-ao n s.ia.ne $N as a 19 Oa7 f 1 SEE I -60 3. 14 °FPARCEL3 1701 2 10 z 034.A or", t. Taws I Ol.a,' 030.41 b.4r°1ll•[. 'I~DC tLl- 107AI j, 00.9.7s-J . l_AT N0.1993- 190 ' i 00 SEE MAP see DetailMop§ j W SEE 22 10 16A b FOR TAX CODE MAO BOUNDARY 'FOSS OAD 8 1906 SEE 1-109 STREET A (1-108) FINLEY BUTTE ~ / (16.0 , 2 10 1 13 loo I SEE MAP i 22 10 16D 3 1 2801 802 105 1-108 1 ,9.9c ~ i _ ROAD rcb n N N z~ao..ts Qco 1900 ~q.~l~r my a.ars z• 100 0 2 part of fax lot 600 i rnoP 22 11 eHg N v I R~~ ) /SC 1-98 UP MAP s , LOOP _ -4, s 23 24 a ' COYOTRS m SEE I AP SE 22 10 21D 10 23C 1 -99 Exhibit B to Order 2006-128 Page 7 of I P g= os $ J es vs a - ° w Y~. - -o real e 100 o m rn p I ~e As J A- I Lz1 s I QI f ao LA- I I I I C7 I J ~ i I I I I ~s o0 Lx_ I I Lz1 I I I ° W W q N 00 C./' I _ m I I I~ I I ~ ~ LF - - - I C fl ~ ~ I I - I so T ' t- ~ ~ - - . A ~J I I I ro H o I I c~ I I i i I W V N O e W L~- I I I I i L- I I I i I so Ltc I I I I I so W cn W 4m qqA ~I I I N C7~ L N ~ W Lz1 N I I I I~ s J r ~ I I ~A N 21 9 t X: I I I I I~. I I I I I I N ~ I S9 I I I I I I I '6'S I s_- v ~ W- c m N r Exhibit B to Order 2006-128 Page 8 of q 4 u IA I", ~ ~ ~ ¢ v s ' J r J fpC ~ ~ N 1tYr... wQ .ter ago t t LAS co o_ } i Exhibit B to Order 2006-128 Page 9 of 1 .1 4'2 0 4 At a 60 N N r a REVIEWED J_~ LEGAL COUNSEL DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FILE NO. PA-06-04 APPLICANT: La Pine Political Action Committee SUBJECT: Incorporation of the City of La Pine APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Edward H. Trompke Jordan Schrader PC PO Box 230669 Portland, OR 97281 1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") adopts and incorporates by reference herein the Staff Report 1 listing of standards and criteria on Page 3, SECTION 2: INCORPORATION REQUIREMENTS, Incorporation Criteria, first paragraph and page 6, SECTION 3: LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, Land Use Criteria, first paragraph, sub-paragraphs A through F. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS. The Board approves the petition for the incorporation of the City of La Pine, attached and incorporated herein. Except where noted below, the Board adopts and incorporates by reference herein the Staff Report, dated July 31, 2006, and adopts and incorporates by reference herein the "Findings Related to the Proposed Incorporation of La Pine, July 25, 2006" ("Findings") and the Economic Feasibility Statement("EFS"), dated July 28, 2006 submitted by the La Pine Political Action Committee. In addition to those findings, the Board finds that, although this is a quasi-judicial land use decision, neither the 120- day nor the 150-day deadlines for a final decision found in ORS 215.427(1) apply because this is not an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change. 1 All references to the Staff Report are to the Deschutes County Community Development Department Staff Report dated August 7, 2006. Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 1 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006407 B. CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS PROPOSED BOUNDARY Prior to the hearing, Staff presented to the Board and to the La Pine Political Action Committee ("LAPAC") a list of questions. That list is attached as Exhibit 1 to this document. The Board agrees with Staff that the proposed boundary is relatively logical and manageable. The primary areas of concern were the tax lots being split by the city/county boundary line and the tax lot that is the farthest East on which is located an historical cemetery. Prior to the hearing County Legal Counsel was concerned that Tax Lots 211035AO01400 and 211035AO01401 would have small portions of their eastern boundaries inside the City limits. County Legal Counsel, however, provided evidence that the small triangle property to the East of Huntington Road at the Northwest corner of the city limits is actually Tax Lot 211035A000100, a separate tax lot from the other two lots. Thus, the Board finds that it is appropriate to follow the Huntington Road right-of-way ("ROW") along Tax Lot 211035A000100. LAPAC presented evidence at the hearing that that Tax Lot 2110000001403 will be split into two different jurisdictions because LAPAC believed it best to continue to follow the Huntington Road ROW at that point rather than the property ownership lines. Tax Lots 2110000001403, 2110000001415, 2110000001416, although all owned by the Steams Land Ownership Limited Partnership, are all separate parcels and irregularly shaped because of the Little Deschutes River is one of the outside boundaries of each parcel. The Board agrees that it is logical to follow Huntington Road because for that parcel rather than the irregular boundary of Tax Lot 21100001403. Just south of Tax Lot 21100001403, however, the boundary deviates from Huntington Road to encompass all of Tax Lot 21135DO0200 because that parcel has straight, easily describable boundaries. Thus, the Board finds that the deviation from Huntington Road is a logical boundary line at this point. The proposed boundary also excludes a small triangle-shaped corner of Tax Lot 2210000000109, owned by Deschutes County and currently within the La Pine Unincorporated Community Neighborhood Planning Area, that lies on the West side of Huntington Road adjacent to Tax Lot 2210000000200, owned by James Young. Mr. Young and the County submitted an application to the County for a lot line adjustment to allow that small triangle to be wholly included within Mr. Young's property in exchange for property further south. The Board finds that the land exchange is sufficient support for the city boundary to continue along Huntington Road rather than include that small triangle. Finally, the city boundary line appeared to split a portion of the federally owned Tax Low 22 10000000 100 adj acent to Huntington Road at the South end of the New Neighborhood. Staff and LAPAC presented evidence at the hearing that that area was split into three parcels by the Bureau of Land Management and land patents were recorded in the name of James Young. One of those parcels is the parcel that Mr. Young will be exchanging with the County. One of the lots, Mr. Young donated to the La Pine Parks and Recreation District ("Park District"). The third is slated for donation to Central Oregon Community College ("COCC"). Thus, the Board finds the inclusion of these lots inside the city limits is appropriate in that the lots to be donated to the County and COCC would be appropriate to be developed and the lot donated to the Park District will add to the park and open space of the new city. Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 2 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006-407 2. STAFF REPORT Proposed Boundary On Page 4, fourth paragraph, the Staff expressed a concern over the adequacy of the Findings in showing "how the proposed city will be able to offer services currently provided by the County, much less how it will be able to provide improved services." For a discussion of these services, see the discussion of Goal 11 below. Therefore, the Board finds that the proponents have provided sufficient evidence that the proposed city boundary is appropriate because the proposed city will be able to provide the appropriate services within that boundary. Economic Feasibility On pages 4 and 5, the Staff expressed concerns regarding the lack of evidence of the feasibility of the new city to provide land use and building permit services, to provide road maintenance, and recreational opportunities. The Staff also found a lack of any discussion regarding the city's expectations in light of the County's recently adopted System Development Charges ("SDCs") program. The Board agrees that these findings were lacking in the Findings and in the EFS. The discussion of LAPAC's response at the hearing regarding each of these issues follows under each of the appropriate Statewide Planning Goals. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning The last paragraph on Page 9 of the Staff Report found that, in order to be able to make a finding that it is likely that the new city will be able to develop a comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, the County needed more information as to how the new city will fund such a process. At the hearing, LAPAC presented testimony that the line items entitled "Revenue - Bldg permits, Inspections" and "Expenditures - Bldg permits, outsource fee" included the revenue from land use applications and the expenditure of contracting with the County, at least initially, for land use permitting services. Additionally, after having reviewed the staffing levels of and services provided by the City of Sisters, LAPAC determined that a part-time City Administrator/Planner would be adequate for at least the first year of the City's existence because, in the short-term, the City is likely to merely adopt the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, which is what the City of Damascus did two years ago. LAPAC expects, however, that the position will be a full-time position sometime in either the second or third years as the City develops its own comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. In regard to revenue for planning and building permit services, LAPAC expects that the application fees for such permits will provide the revenue for those services for the short term. For long range planning, LAPAC expects that the City will see financial assistance from the State and other possibly interested groups such as 1000 Friends of Oregon. Additionally, LAPAC expects that the 75% figure proposed as the percentage of building/land use permit revenue that will be used to pay the consulting/contracting fees to the County will actually be higher for the first year or two of the City's existence. Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed incorporation will likely comply with this goal. Goal 8 - Recreation Needs Under the discussion on Page 11, Staff noted that the Findings and EFS submitted by LAPAC failed to provide any evidence as to how the City would likely be able to meet the recreational needs of its citizens. At the hearing, LAPAC presented evidence that the City will likely not be providing parks for the first few years of its existence. In fact, it may take as long as ten years to begin developing parks and other recreation areas in the city. Provision of Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 3 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006-407 those recreation services will have to be included as part of the City's comprehensive plan, which LAPAC assumes the City will develop within the four-year statutory period. Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed incorporation will likely comply with this goal. Goal 11- Public Facilities On Page 9, the Staff noted that the new city officials determine the level and means of providing law enforcement based on "the results of the levy." The Staff also points out that nothing in the proposed budget in the EFS provides for funding of law enforcement services. Additionally, the questions given to the proponents prior the hearing expressed a need for further explanation of the public services that the proponents estimate the newly formed city will provide beginning on the first day of the incorporation. First of all, the Board clarifies that the measures on the ballot that concern the Sheriff's Office funding are not, in themselves, tax levies. They are for the creation of two law enforcement districts with each having an approved permanent tax rate. The first district will be County-wide and cover services such as Adult Corrections, Search and Rescue, Emergency Planning. The second district will cover the rural patrol services and will not include the cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters. This is the district that the newly formed city may decide whether to remain within or withdraw and provide for its own law enforcement either by hiring its own officers or contracting with the new district. Thus, the Board agrees that the city can make the decision on the method of providing law enforcement services once the results of the district formation measures is known. As for the funding of the law enforcement services, at the hearing, LAPAC provided testimony that nothing is likely to change upon the incorporation if the Sheriff's District #2 is formed at the November election. If District #2 fails, the County Sheriff's current levy will continue through June 30, 2007. After that, unless another local option levy is approved by the voters, the County will have no rural patrols. The Board finds that the new city can decide prior to the end of the Sheriff's levy whether to adjust the proposed budget to include the provision of law enforcement services. In regards to water and sewer services, although the Findings did list enhanced services as a reason to incorporate, the Board agrees with the information submitted by LAPAC at the hearing that nothing in the statutes requires enhanced services in order for a city to incorporation. LAPAC also presented substantial testimony that these services will not be lessened by the incorporation because the new city will merely subsume all the assets and liabilities of the two districts and will keep the same budgets for their services. Additionally, Jayne Benner testified that the revenue and expenditures included in the estimated budget in the EFS reflect the current budgets of each district. The budgets are attached as exhibits to the EFS. Prior to the hearing, the proponents were asked about the likelihood of providing solid waste management services. At the hearing, LAPAC testified that they expect that the City will adopt the same franchise regulations and same franchise provider as the County currently has. If not, the current provider will likely be able to determine how it will provide solid waste management services. The Board finds this explanation to be sufficient to show that the new city will be able to provide these services beginning the first day of incorporation. Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed incorporation will likely comply with this goal. Goal 12 - Transportation On Page 12, Staff expressed a concern for the fact that the Findings do not address the County's recently adopted transportation SDC program. This question was also posed to LAPAC prior to the hearing. Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 4 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006-407 At the hearing, LAPAC presented testimony that the City will work with the County in resolving the issues of a Transportation System Plan that coordinates with the City and the State and a means of determining how the County's SDC program will relate to the City. Thus, the Board finds that it is feasible for and likely that the City will be able to plan for its transportation needs. Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed incorporation will likely comply with this goal. Goal 13 - Energy On Page 12, Staff noted that the Findings say that the city will have to provide for recycling as part of its solid waste program. The Board agrees that neither the Findings nor the EFS explain how this will be funded. Additionally, the Findings do not explain how recycling relates to Energy issues. At the hearing, LAPAC presented testimony that incorporating will likely cause a reduction in the use of fossil fuels because the City boundaries will be bigger than the current UUC area. Because of this larger area, there is a greater possibility, especially with the area the Bureau of Land Management slated for community expansion, that more commercial and industrial areas can be developed than are currently developed or currently zoned for such development. Therefore, the Board finds that argument plausible and finds that the proposed incorporation will likely comply with this goal. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Deschutes County Implementing Ordinances The Board agrees with the findings of Staff on Page 12 that the Findings included several inaccurate references to the County's Comprehensive Plan and failed to address Regional Problem Solving ("RPS") issues, one of the issues of most concern to the County for the South County region. Staff also concluded on Page 13 the fact that that "some inaccurate or missing information and inaccurate conclusions does not preclude the city from completing a comprehensive plan and implementing regulations." The Board agrees with the Staff's conclusion. The issue on Page 13 regarding the funding for the land use planning tasks is addressed above under the discussion of Goal 2. Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed incorporation will likely comply with the County's Comprehensive Plan and will be able to comply with the County's regulations until it adopts its own to implement its own comprehensive plan. FINDINGS The Board does not intend to correct every inaccurate reference to the County's Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulations. The findings below are merely to correct and clarify a few statements of importance. One general comment, however, is that, throughout the Findings, the proponents mention "enhanced," "improved" or "higher level" of services, yet do not explain how the services will be enhanced or raised in level because very little is said about what current services are provided. The Board finds that an "enhanced," "improved" or "higher level" of services is not required by the statutes in order to find an incorporation of a city feasible or likely to be able to comply with the Statewide Planning Goals and the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 5 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006-407 Another general comment is that the Board realizes that there are several incorrect references to specific provisions in the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds that these incorrect references do not detract from the general Board finding that the incorporation is feasible or likely to be able to comply with the Statewide Planning Goals and the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. 2.2.2 Standards of ORS 221.040 On Page 6, the first paragraph of this section, the Findings state that the proposed boundaries were created by the proponents after public input. Although the Findings do not say exactly what that public input was until Section 3.1.2 on page 17, the Board finds that public input described in Section 3.1.2 and the public had input at the August 7, 2006 hearing, the requirement in ORS 221.040(2) for the public input regarding the boundaries has been met. On Page 6, the information in the last paragraph of this section that continues on to Page 7 is not completely accurate because the boundary will exclude a couple of subdivisions directly adjacent to and abutting the northwest boundary lines. The Board, however, finds that the boundary lines drawn in those areas are logical and feasible because they generally follow the public ROWS of Huntington Road and Burgess Road. On Page 8, the first full paragraph, the Board clarifies that the cities generally do not provide direct health services other than through programs such as clean drinking water and the appropriate solid waste and sewage disposal programs. Counties have the responsibility for direct health services. Thus, the City does not have to show that it can provide those direct services. On Page 8, under the discussion of "La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community," the Findings were not clear as to whether the proponents expect that the new city will fully subsume the current La Pine sewer and water districts and, therefore, acquire those districts' assets and liabilities. Staff submitted this question to the proponents prior to the hearing. At the hearing, LAPAC testified that its intention that the City will fully absorb those to districts and take the responsibility for their services. On Page 10, under the discussion of "Rural Residential Properties," the second paragraph says that the County has not accepted most of the public roads within the proposed city boundaries. The Board finds this statement is not accurate because, as the Findings also point out, of the 30 miles of public roads within the proposed boundaries, the County has accepted and maintains 20 miles. Thus, most of the roads are maintained by the County. This error, however, does not change the Board's prior finding that this proposed incorporation is likely to comply with the Statewide Planning Goal 10. In the next paragraph, the Board clarifies that the New Neighborhood has zoning regulations in currently in place that require a public park in each of the four designated neighborhoods. Thus, the current La Pine UUC area will have public parks regardless of whether the area incorporates. This finding, however, does not alter the Board's previous finding that the newly incorporated city will be able to plan for the city's recreational needs. On Page 11, under the discussion of "Resource Lands, "2 with one exception, the Board disagrees with the statement in the Findings that omitting resource land from the city limits will result in a "mishmash" of communication, regulations and enforcement. All of the cities in the County have resource lands that lie adjacent to their city boundaries and the County is perfectly capable of regulating those properties and communicating with the property owners. The one area where including the resource land makes sense for regulation, communication and enforcement 2 This same discussion occurs on Page 24 and is also corrected by this finding. Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 6 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006-407 purposes is the triangle shaped area that is the "donut hole" in the current La Pine UUC. The Board agrees that create an island of non-incorporated resource land within the middle of the city would not be desirable. This finding, however, does not preclude the Board from also finding, as it has above, that the inclusion within the city boundaries of other land that is currently designated resource land has been justified and shown in the Staff Report and the Findings that the city will be able to comply with the Statewide Planning Goals and the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations upon incorporation. On Page 12, under the discussion of "BFU and Flood Plane Lane West of the La Pine UUC" (sic), the Board disagrees that the land lying west of the La Pine UUC, around Third and Sixth streets has been irrevocably committed to non-resource uses. Although this area was platted long ago, that is not the test for "irrevocably committed" under the State administrative rules for taking an exception. There had not been development on the land consistent with a finding of it being irrevocably committed. This finding, however, does not negate the Board's earlier finding of agreement with the Staff Report and Findings that this resource land is appropriate for including in the city boundaries because it can be maintained by the city as resource land and/or as open space. On Page 13, under the discussion of "Rural Residential Land East of Neighborhood," the Board clarifies that discussion is actually of the rural residential area immediately adjacent to the "West" side of the New Neighborhood and immediately south of Burgess Road. 3.2.3 First Priority Exception Areas The Board clarifies that the "13 acres of the Baldwin-Herndon Oregon Trust Property" listed in this section on Pages 20 and 21, Tax Lot 221011CB00300, is now owned by the County. The County acquired that land in 2001 in an exchange with the Baldwin-Hemdon Oregon Trust for adjacent property, what is now part of Tax Lot 2210110000200 and currently owned by Victor and Vicki Russell. 3.6 Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resource Quality The Findings document under this section states that the incorporation will provide enhancement to these resources. Although the Findings lack specificity for this statement, the Board agreed with the Staff Report in that the City will be capable of complying with the Goal 6 requirements. 3.7.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation Under this discussion, the Findings state without support that the incorporation would enhance the RPS project in the South County area. As stated above, prior to the hearing, Staff and the Board expressed a concern for the lack of a demonstration of the City's willingness or ability to meet, let alone enhance the RPS project. Also as stated above, however, the Board finds that LAPAC provided substantial evidence at the hearing that the city is likely to comply with the RPS process for the area. 3.9 Goal 9: Economic Development 3.9.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 7 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006-407 Staff pointed out prior to the hearing that the Findings stated that the proposed city will assume ownership of the Newberry Industrial Park, currently owned and managed by the County through the La Pine Industrial Group, Inc. Although there was consideration for the transfer during the previous incorporation and port district attempts, no discussion has occurred between the current Board and LAPAC regarding this issue. Therefore, the Board clarifies that such a consideration is not applicable at this time. Given, however, that the Findings do not hinge any finding of economic feasibility on this transfer, omission of the discussion of the transfer does not weaken the city's economic feasibility. Additionally, as discussed under the Staff Report, Goal 13 discussion above, LAPAC testified at the hearing that the expansion of the City's ability to create additional commercial and industrials areas that currently exist, will provide a greater ability to provide a growing economic base in the area and provide living waged jobs for its citizens. Thus, the Board finds that the proposed incorporation will likely satisfy this goal. 3.10 Goal 10: Housing On Page 30, the last paragraph, the Findings fail to include the fact that the Board recently approved the donation of 4.5 acres of County land for affordable housing. Thus, the Board's donation will aid the City in its future goal of providing affordable housing. Thus, the 3.11. Goal 11: Public Facilities The Board finds that the Findings erred on page 33 under the discussion of "Water Service" in that a portion of the Wickiup Junction Planning Area is currently being served by the La Pine Water District. LAPAC agreed at the public hearing that the information was in error. Because, however, a portion of Wickiup Junction is served by the Water District, the city will be able to continue that service upon taking over the Water District's functions. Under the discussion of "Road Maintenance and Improvement," the Findings say that all the incorporation will result in all public roads falling under the jurisdiction of the City for maintenance and improvement. This statement is in error and in conflict with the previous findings that the County will maintain 20 of the 30 miles ofpublic roads within the propose city limits. 3.14 Goal 14: Urbanization 3.14.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation On Page 38, under the discussion of "Need for the Urbanizable Land," the Findings err in the first paragraph by stating that a large proportion of the City's population will remain rural. The Board finds that, given that the Urban Growth Boundary will likely be what is now the La Pine UUC, with the full build-out of the New Neighborhood, the majority of the City's population will be in the urban area. Under the "BSEE Consequences" discussion on page 39, the Findings fail to discuss the environmental consequences of the incorporation. When asked at the hearing to discussion this issue, LAPAC testified that, because there likely will be a greater opportunity to provide local jobs, there will be less commuting, causing a reduction in the about of polluting emissions into the air. Additionally, because the City might eventually be able to expand its UGB to encompass more of the land within the proposed boundaries of the City, the City will be able to provide sewer Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 8 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006-407 connections to more properties, thereby helping to reduce the nitrate problem in the region. Furthermore, the City intends to work with the agencies involved in the Regional Problem Solving process for South County to assure no further degradation to the environmental assets of the region. Finally, because the zoning within the City will remain the same as the current zoning until the City adopts its own Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations and creates its UGB and the City will have to consider the environmental issues at that time, the Board does not foresee any negative environmental impacts from the incorporation. 4. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STATEMENT Page 7 of the revised Economic Feasibility Statement ("EFS"), dated July 28, 2006 says that the "district" assessed value for the property within the proposed city is currently $76,000,000. Although the EFS does not express "assessed value" in terms used by Article 11, Section 11, and the implementing statutes, the Board finds that this value is meant to be the "Total Assessed Value" for the properties within the boundaries of the proposed city. Legal Counsel verified this total with the County Assessor and found that $76,000,000 is the correct estimate. Prior to the hearing, the questions given to the proponents listed various services or personnel for which there was a perceived lack of accounting for in the budget or in the narrative of the EFS. The Board, however, agrees with the testimony in response to those questions provided by LA-PAC at the hearing that the budget provided in the EFS is sufficient to show that the City will likely be economically feasible. The Board finds that not including law enforcement in the proposed budget at this time is logical given an assumption that either the Sheriff's District #2 will be formed with a permanent tax rate or that the Sheriff's local option levy will be renewed allowing for the current level of Sheriff's patrol in the area. As discussed above, LAPAC adequately explained how it would provide for other services immediately upon incorporation, services such as land use permitting and solid waste disposal. Additionally, the Board agrees that many unknowns exist at this point, including the need for services and, thus, the City will address those issues upon incorporation and election of the City Council. The Board makes one correction; however, to the EFS in that the number of acres listed in the paragraph on page 4 under "AREA TO BE SERVED" is seven (7) square miles, not "4.5" as stated in the document. Thus, the Board finds that petitioners have shown that the proposed city will be economically feasible with a permanent tax rate limit of $1.98 per $1000.00 of total assessed value. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Additionally, based upon filings with the County Clerk, upon the evidence presented at the public hearing and in supplemental submissions by interested parties, the Board makes the following findings of fact: A. Procedural Requirements On June 20, 2006, Chief Petitioners Katherine Shields, Luan Damerval and Brian Earls, registered electors within the territory of the proposed City of La Pine, filed with the County Clerk prior to its circulation a proposed petition to incorporate an unincorporated territory as a city. The petition is attached and incorporated by reference herein. 2. As required by ORS 221.031(2) the petition: a. Designated Katherine Shields, Luan Damerval and Brian Earls, as chief petitioners, each of whom is an elector and resident within the boundaries of the proposed city. Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 9 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006407 b. Named the proposed city the City of La Pine. C. Proposed a permanent rate of $1.98 per $1,000 of assessed valuation as sufficient to support an adequate level of municipal services. d. Included a map, in the form an aerial photograph with depicted boundary lines, indicating the exterior boundaries of the proposed City of La Pine. (The legal description of the area within the boundaries on the map was prepared by the County Surveyor as required by ORS 221.040(3)(a). A copy of the final legal description is set forth as an attachment to Order 2006-128 and incorporated by reference herein.) On June 20, 2006, the Chief Petitioners also filed the economic feasibility statement (EFS) required by ORS 221.03 5, a copy of which is marked Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by this reference, and the County Clerk certified the Petition for circulation and the gathering of signatures. 4. On July 11, 2006, the County Clerk verified 109 valid signatures on the Petition, which represents 20% of the electors within the territory of the proposed City of La Pine. B. Content of Petition and Supporting Economic Feasibility Study 1. The petition to incorporate the City of La Pine and the EFS supporting it, as filed, meets the requirements of OS 221.031 through 221.040. They: a. Designate the name for the proposed city as the City of La Pine, Oregon; b. Propose a permanent rate limit of $1.98 per $1,000 of assessed value based upon a total assessed value for the proposed city of $76,000,000 (FY2006-2007), which would be levied beginning the first full fiscal year after the effective date of incorporation (July 1, 2007); C. Provide a map of the exterior boundaries of the proposed city. 2. The EFS prepared by Petitioners forms the basis for the permanent rate limit of $1.98 per $1,000 assessed value. As required by ORS 221.035, the EFS contains: a. A description of services and functions to be performed by the proposed city; b. An analysis of relationships to other existing or needed government services, including the absorption of the La Pine Special Sewer District, La Pine Water District, which will be entirely encompassed by the city and will be extinguished pursuant to ORS 222.510, and the intent of Petitioners to remain a part of the La Pine Fire Protection District and the La Pine Park and Recreation District; C. The intent of Petitioners to continue to receive law enforcement services from the Deschutes County Sheriff for the foreseeable future; d. A projection of potential non-property tax revenues to provide additional financial resources for city services; e. Proposed first through third-year budgets for the new city demonstrating economic feasibility. C. Land That May Benefit Based upon the record, the Board finds that those lands, and only those lands, which are included within the boundaries of the city as proposed in the petition are likely to be benefited by inclusion within the boundaries of the proposed city. The Findings dated July 28, 2006 submitted by LAPAC Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 10 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006-407 contains within it a detailed description of each area and the benefits that will accrue to their inclusion within the boundaries. 2. All foreseeable needs for urban and urbanizable land can be met within the boundaries as proposed. Public infrastructure services can be provided to the urban portions of the proposed city. 4. Urban development can occur without impact to resource lands within the proposed boundaries. IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, incorporation of the City of La Pine is APPROVED and the question of incorporation shall be placed on the ballot at the November 7, 2006 election. Dated this of A t141.' At- , 2006 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCI-WES COUNTY, OREGON R. LUKE, ATTEST: &VA4-t:1.&h4- Recording Secretary , VICE CHAIR MI H L M. DALY, CO SSIONER THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL UPON MAILING. PARTIES MAY APPEAL THIS DECISION TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THIS DECISION IS FINAL. Incorporation of the City of La Pine Board Decision Page 11 of 11 Exhibit C, Document No. 2006407 TES ~i Community Development Department 0 Planning Division • Building Safety Division • Environmental Health Division ° 117 NW Lafayette Avenue • Bend. Oregon • 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 • FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or. us/ cdd/ DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT DATE: Public Hearing - August 7, 2006 4 TIME: 4d-00 A.M. PLACE: Justice Courtroom in the South County Deschutes Services Center 51340 Highway 97 La Pine, Oregon 97736 PETITIONER: La Pine Political Action Committee Bob Cox, President REQUEST: Petition to initiate the incorporation of the City of La Pine SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Introduction A petition has been filed for the incorporation of a new city in Deschutes County. The Board of County Commissioners is holding a hearing to determine whether to place the proposed incorporation on the upcoming November 7, 2006 ballot. To determine whether the incorporation should be placed before the voters, the Board of County Commissioners must determine: 1. Whether the proposed boundary correctly includes all lands that would be benefited from being in the proposed city. . 2. Whether the taxation rate will support the proposed services. 3. Whether the proposed city can and will be able to comply with relevant statewide planning goals and County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. The first two issues are required by State Statue and the third is related to land use and is required by Oregon Administrative Rule. For ease of use, this report has been divided into four sections. 1. Introduction and Background 2. Incorporation Requirements, including boundary benefits and taxation 3. Land Use Requirements, including compliance with statewide goals and County Comprehensive Plan 4. Conclusion and Options Quality Services Performed with Pride F SECTION 2: INCORPORATION REQUIREMENTS Incorporation Criteria ORS Chapter 221 sets out city incorporation procedures, and ORS Chapter 197 establishes the county's land use planning authority and responsibility. Approval, Denial, and Modification ORS 221.040(2) provides that, upon the filing of a petition for incorporation, the county "Court" (Board of Commissioners) shall conduct a public hearing at which "any person interested may appear and present oral or written objections to the granting of the petition, the forming of the proposed incorporated city or the estimated rate of taxation set forth in the petition. " The same section provides that the Board: may alter the boundaries as set forth in the petition to include all territory which may be benefited by being included within the boundaries of the proposed incorporated city." "No land shall be included in the proposed city which will not, in the judgment of the county, be benefited." The statute and case law identify four general subject areas for consideration: 1. Whether to grant or deny the petition. 2. Whether to permit the formation of the proposed city. 3. The adequacy of the estimated taxation rate under all of the circumstances. 4. Whether to alter the proposed boundaries in order to include all territory that may be benefited. Under 221.040(2) and Deschutes County's citizen participation policies, any person interested may present oral and written evidence and argument on any of the wide range of subjects which are relevant to these four general issues under the statewide goals, interpretive rules, comprehensive plan, and applicable statutes. The County's authority to approve, reject, or modify the proposal is also implicit in ORS 221.040(3), which provides that, Upon the final hearing of the petition, the Court, if it approves the petition as originally presented or in an altered form, shall provide by order for the holding of an election relating to the incorporation of the proposed city. The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that Local Government Boundary Commissions, under similar statutes and with similar obligations to apply statewide goals and local comprehensive plans, may approve, alter, or deny petitions for incorporation of new cities. See Aloha Advisory Comm. v. Port. Metro. Area LGBC, 72 Or App 299 (1985). See also, 9000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 62 Or App 75, 659 P2d 1001, rev den 295 Or 399, 614 P2d 1144 (1980). La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 3 continue to maintain the roads that are currently in the County road system. The Board will have to agree to this assumption. 3. Building Program-Permit fees and expenses: The building permit numbers may be significantly understated. The County collected $698,645 in permit revenue within the proposed incorporation boundaries in FY 2005-06, most of which reflects permits issued for 142 single family homes within the proposed incorporation area. However, it should be noted that revenues associated with building permits are restricted under ORS 455.210 to "administration and enforcement of a building inspection program." In other words, they may not be used in other words for general municipal purposes. It is not clear whether the City intends to contract with the County for building plan review and inspection services only, or all components of a building program including permit application take-in and issuance, record keeping, system maintenance, etc. The compensation (proposed at 75% of fee revenue) may need to be adjusted depending on the level of service requested. 4. Land Use Planning. It is possible and likely that the city will be able to obtain some funding for land use planning to develop its own comprehensive plan and land use regulations from the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The findings (pg 22) state that land use permitting would be contracted out the first year. For the fiscal year 2005-2006, there were 73 land use applications within the proposed city boundary, generating $34,000 income. Neither the revenue or contract expense is accounted for in the budget. 5. System Development Charges (SDC's). The County loaned the La Pine Special Sewer District $1.1 million for expansion of the sewer treatment plant. Under an intergovernmental contract, repayment of that loan shall be made from SDC's collected within the Neighborhood Planning Area (Newberry Neighborhood). Annual loan repayments should be reflected in the expense budget. The County has an SDC program to fund four traffic lights. The findings and the budget do not address if and how incorporation will affect these planning improvements and funding source. 6. The findings (pg 28) discuss money for increased recreational opportunities, but this is not supported by the budget. 7. The findings state that the city would assume ownership and management of the La Pine Industrial Park that is currently owned by the County. However, this is not listed anywhere in the budget. Additionally, it is not clear that this has been discussed with the County. La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 5 ORS 197.175(2) requires cities and counties to adopt comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances in compliance with the statewide goals. ORS 215.130(2) provides that, until a newly incorporated city adopts its own land use plan and implementing ordinances, the county's plan and ordinances continue to control land use within the city. ORS 197.757 requires cities incorporated after January 1, 1982, to have their comprehensive plans and land use ordinances acknowledged by the LCDC as consistent with state land use goals no later than four years after the date of incorporation. Application of Statewide Planning Goals to Incorporation Petitions The Oregon Supreme Court has provided useful guidance as to how the goals are to be applied to proposed city incorporations. In Part III of its decision in the Rajneeshpuram incorporation case, the Supreme Court explained that: The legislature deemed a county's decision in connection with a proposed incorporation a land use decision which must accord with `the goals; without exception. We take this general mandate to mean that to the extent a county can conduct a meaningful inquiry as to all 19 goals, it must do so. A county's responsibility at the time it considers a petition for an incorporation election is no greater with respect to Goal 14 (urbanization goal) than with respect to the other goals. It is to determine the compatibility of incorporation and its consequences with the criteria stated in the goal. Incorporation will transfer to the city actual planning authority for some of the land presently within the county's planning authority. Some of the consequences of incorporation may foreseeably affect land that remains the county's responsibility. The county cannot expect the proponents of incorporation to present a concrete or even a tentative comprehensive plan before the election, and we do not believe that the legislature intended this, although proponents may wish to offer their own ideas for a plan in making their record for approval of the proposed incorporation. The county can, however, expect that the proponents present evidence of the purposes sought to be achieved by incorporation insofar as they bear on future land use, such as the kind of municipal services that the city is expected to provide and the projections about future population and tax base that these purposes assume or necessarily imply. The rea ism of the purposes and projections and the probable consequences for land use are, of course, open to challenge. Although this task that ORS 197.175 assigns the counties may not be easy, there is no doubt that the legislature assigned it. We believe that it can be given a practical interpretation... The seven establishment factors of Goal 14 are designed to be considered in conjunction with the actual drawing of a proposed UGB. Nonetheless, under the test stated in Part ll of this opinion, a county can determine whether it is reasonably likely that the newly incorporated city can and will consider and address the Goal 14 factors when the city eventually draws a proposed UGB, and whether it is reasonably likely that the city can and will ensure that future urbanization is appropriate and not incompatible with Goal 14 and the other goals. La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 7 comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances. Therefore, the evidence and findings supporting an approval of an incorporation petition must support the county's determination that: (1) the proposed city can and will comply with both sets of regulations from the outset; and, (2) the proposed city can and will adopt, secure acknowledgement, and competently implement its own comprehensive land use plan and implementing ordinances within the time period allowed by the statute. The record and findings must also demonstrate that the city can and will continue to comply with the County plan and implementing regulations or that the city can and will be able to adopt and implement its own plan and implementing regulations in a manner consistent with the statewide goals that will apply directly to the city's planning and zoning process. This requirement effectively brings the statewide goals in through the plan and requires the same analysis of goal issues as described in the Wasco case, quoted above. If the proposed incorporation is found to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or applicable zoning ordinances, then the petition will have to be denied or an appropriate plan amendment or land use regulation amendment will have to be adopted in conjunction with any approval. Staff Comments Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and the County Comprehensive Plan The following comments on the issue of compliance with the statewide Planning Goals and County Comprehensive Plan are based on the information submitted by the La Pine Political Action Committee in the Findings Related to the Proposed Incorporation of La Pine July 25, 2006 (Exhibit A) and the Economic Feasibility Statement, July 28, 2006, (Exhibit B). Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement The findings (pgs 17-18) demonstrate that the community has been and will continue to be actively involved in planning and decision making on land use issues. It is likely that the proposed city can and will comply with Goal 1 and County policies on public input. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning The proposed boundary contains an adequate amount of exception land, and it may not be necessary to immediately take additional exceptions to the statewide planning goals. However, if the newly incorporated city decides to include land, such as the BLM forest land or EFU land, within the UGB, then exceptions will be required under Goal 2 and 14. It is feasible that findings to justify an exception can be approved based on need for additional land in the UGB. The new city will have four years to develop a comprehensive plan and implementing ordinance. The findings (pg 22) conclude that the city will take the general approach of basing its plan and implementing ordinances on the County's plan, because it would be unnecessary or undesirable to start from scratch. The findings also note that the community has been involved in development of the existing County plans and regulations. Given the proposed work program, the findings have established a reasonable timeline for accomplishing this work. While it appears that the proposed city could complete a comprehensive plan and implementing regulations that would be consistent with the County Comprehensive plan and La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 9 District and adopt policies to reduce fire hazard in the boundary through regulation and ordinances to reduce wildfire hazard. It is feasible for the proposed city to do so. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs The proposed city is within the boundary of the La Pine Park and Recreation District. The District has existing parks and programs, including Roslyn Park, which is proposed for inclusion within the city boundary. Goal 8 also includes destination resorts and the City will have to decide if it wants to allow destination resorts. It is likely that the proposed city would be able to comply with Goal 8 when it adopts a comprehensive plan. It should be noted that the findings indicate (pg 29) that recreation will be enhanced by incorporation. However, this statement is not backed up with facts or a budget. Goal 9 - Economic Development The boundary includes land currently planned and zoned for industrial, commercial and mixed uses, including undeveloped parcels that will likely meet the needs of the city when for Goal 9 when the UGB is established. The findings (pg 30) recognize that a Goal 9 economic analysis will be required. Goal 10 -Housing The findings (pgs 30 -32) conclude that the La Pine UUC contains sufficient land that is or could be made available for urban density housing with public sewer and water. The Rural Residential exception lands will provide housing at a lower density. To establish the UGB the City will have to complete a housing analysis. It is reasonable to assume that the land within the boundary will meet the anticipated growth and housing needs of the city. The Neighborhood Planning Area has requirements and goals adopted in the County Comprehensive Plan that link development in the Planning Area reduction in nitrate loading from onsite wastewater treatment systems in the rural La Pine basin. To be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan it will be necessary for the new city to retain and implement these policies. Goal 11 - Public Facilities This Goal requires the new city to develop a "timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." This requirement will require the new city to determine its needs for facilities and services based on development plans and population projections and assure that needed facilities and services are available in advance of or concurrent with development. Goal 11 lists police, sanitary facilities, storm drainage, planning and zoning, health services, recreation facilities and services, energy and communication and community governmental services as minimum facilities and services needed to serve an urban area. Petitioner states in the findings (pg 32-34) that the city will remain within the fire and park and recreation districts and continue to receive law enforcement from the County Sheriff. However, Sheriff services will depend on the November tax levy measure results. The best option for providing law enforcement would be determined by the new city officials based on the results of the levy. Sewer and water services are provided by the La Pine sewer and water districts. The boundaries of the sewer and water districts include the entire La Pine UUC. Outside of the La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 11 The findings recognize that the County has completed extensive work to adopt the Goal 5 program and that it would be best not to duplicate that work. They recognize that a reasonable option would be to adopt the County's current polices and regulations. Deschutes County Implementing Ordinances Deschutes County Code Title 18 (zoning), Title 22 (procedures) and Title 17 (land division) implement the County Comprehensive Plan and state law. The new city will be required to implement these regulations until they adopt and receive acknowledgment from the state for their own implementing regulations. The findings state (pg 22) that the city will contract with the County to implement the land use permitting requirements. After the first year the findings state that the city will establish its own planning department. That department will have to implement the County regulations until its own are adopted and acknowledged. It is not clear how the planning department will be funded. In general, the presence of some inaccurate or missing information and inaccurate conclusions does not preclude the city from completing a comprehensive plan and implementing regulations that will be coordinated with the County Comprehensive Plan and comply with all of the applicable statewide planning goals. However, it is not clear from the budget how this work will be funded or how the city will implement the County Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances until the city adopts its own plan and regulations. La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 13 2. Denial at this time: The findings and Economic Feasibility Statement do not provide enough detail meet the three tests. The incorporation petitioners should be allowed the opportunity to provide more complete and coordinated findings and feasibility documents. This option would mean not recommending the matter be placed on the ballot in 2006 and would delay the incorporation vote for two years. 3. Modification: Propose changes in the boundary. Exhibits A. Findings Related to the Proposed Incorporation of La Pine July 25, 2006 B. Petition for Incorporation Economic Feasibility Statement, June 28, 2006 C. Map - Proposed Boundary of the Town of La Pine D. Map - Current Zoning Proposed La Pine Incorporation Boundary E. Map - La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community Zoning F. Map - Roads Within La Pine City Limits G La Pine Proposed Incorporation: Existing Zoning and Road Information Spreadsheet La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 15 Findings Related to the Proposed Incorporation of La Pine July 25, 2006 Prepared for the La Pine Political Action Committee by the Law Firm of Jordan Schrader, P.C. 1. Background 1.1 History of La Pine Local historian Bob Shotwelll,' summarizing La Pine's history, wrote the following narrative: in 1852 when engineers were seeking a route over Willamette Pass through the La Pine basin. Two major wagon trails followed the Little Deschutes River upstream to the vicinity of Crescent in 1853 and 1854 before heading west across the Cascade Mountains. For about 10 years in the late 1800s, Chief Paulina and his renegade band from the Walapi Tribe of the Snake Indians roamed the area terrorizing Central Oregon with attacks on forts and garrisons as well as ranches and homesteads. The band got obsidian from Newberry Crater to use for arrowheads and spear points. The town of La Pine was founded around 1900. B. J. Pengra had homesteaded in the area in 1870 and surveyed the first north/south wagon road through the La Pine basin, establishing Pengra Huntington Road. The Huntington in the road name was for J. W. Pent Huntington, who was the Oregon Superintendent oflndian Affairs a man who had used the rout when it was a mere footpath. In the early days, La Pine was considered a 'pretty wild place " with loggers, sheepherders and cowboys making up a good part of the population. They lived hard fives in a hard climate, lured by promise of land that was "almost free', good hunting and good fishing. In 1910, town lots were selling for $50 each and one of the recreation activities was a horseback ride to the prairies around the town where horsemen would race the herds of antelope. Present-day U.S. 97 began as an Indian trail from Klamath to the Columbia River. The road for freight wagons carrying merchandise from Bend to Silver Lake through La Pine was uphill, rocky and rugged in the summer and often blocked with snow in the winter. Toll gates were tried on the road in the early 1920s, but were abandoned in 1925 because they were considered harmful to the tourist business. From that early beginning, La Pine has grown to include approximately 2,000 people within the proposed city boundaries. Several thousand more people reside outside the boundaries south of the Sunriver destination resort. This area has been the subject of extensive intergovernmental planning processes to resolve a number of growth-related problems in the 1 Taken from La Pine Strategic Plan 49462-35644 73619.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTB7C/7/2612006 area, including groundwater contamination, wild fire hazards, loss of wildlife habitat/range areas and migration routes, as well as economic issues. Other socio-economic issues have also preoccupied the area including lack of health and other social services for an area which has historically been dominated by retirees but is increasingly becoming more diversified. 1.2 History ofLPAC In 1994, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners appointed fourteen residents to a group called the La Pine Community Action Team (LCAT) to develop a Strategic Plan. LCAT was an outgrowth of the La Pine Health Care Council's efforts to improve health care services in the La Pine area. In its 12 years of existence, LCAT has served as a significant forum for community involvement in a wide range of projects and activities, including: the La Pine Strategic Plan (1996 and 2000); the governance and incorporation studies; Southern Deschutes and Northern Klamath Population and Income Study establishment of a community web site and newsletter; the development of a community vision; historical building preservation; and support for the development and project funding of the La Pine Special Water District. In the year 2000, the LCAT put forth an incorporation effort which included 32 square miles of area and more than 7,300 inhabitants. This, of course, was substantially larger than the 7 square miles, 2,000 inhabitants which make up the proposed area of incorporation presented today. Probably because of the incredibly diverse nature of the land included in the proposed boundaries in the year 2000, that incorporation attempt failed. However, the sentiment within members of the LCAT that incorporation of the La Pine area is of utmost importance to the community, caused them to regroup, redraw the boundaries of the area proposed for incorporation and to form a new group of citizens dedicated to the plan to incorporate what is now the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community (LA Pine WC) land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on the east side of Highway 97, Some Rural residential land north and west of the UUC and some EFU and Flood Plan land. These citizens are the people who make up the La Pine Political Action Committee (LPAC). 1.3 Strategic Plan The La Pine Strategic Plan was completed in April, 1996. The Strategic Plan involved extensive involvement by citizens in developing a community vision statement, goals, strategies and an action agenda. The components of the Strategic were structured around the four building blocks of community and economic development Business Development; Physical Infrastructure; Human Resources; and Quality of Life covering virtually every aspect of the issues found in the complex interactions between the economy and community development challenges. Three fundamental statements of the Vision have served to direct the Strategic Plan and subsequent planning efforts in the community, including the Quality of Life Goal to establish a system of government for La Pine by the year 2006. These fundamental statements are: • First: La Pine will maintain its rural identity and quality of life, preserving its local beauty and environment. 2 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and FHTBJC17/26/2006 • Second: Economic diversification will lead to economic stability. • Third. La Pine will become a full-service community. In April, 2000, LCAT completed a revision of the Strategic Plan. It establishes goals as follows: • La Pine is a beautiful rural community. The development of a physical design for the greater La Pine area is a major action to accomplish this goal. The visioning project now underway is the implementation of this goal and action. • La Pine is an affordable and equitable full service community. Action items to address this goal include a plan to address housing needs, development of locally-based retail establishments, improvement of health care services (including availability and affordability), increase access to local transportation, building a domestic violence resource center/safe house and building a senior resource center. • La Pine is self-governed. Action measures include increasing voter registration and media coverage to insure participation in the process and informed decision-making. • La Pine is an economically diverse, self-sustained community. Actions include surveying existing business to establish a data base of resources and needs and completing an economic development strategy. • Citizens of all ages are active in all aspects of the community, working together for the betterment of La Pine. Increasing youth and senior involvement in community activities and increasing community knowledge and awareness of local activities and issues are major actions. • High quality educational opportunities exist for all. Increasing local participation in the Bend-La Pine School Board, Site Council and COCC Advisory Board and developing a plan for the COCC South Campus Expansion are the primary action items. • La Pine is a technologically advanced community. Major actions include introducing high-speed internet access and increased bandwidth in La Pine, establishing required demand levels from providers and developing an implementation plan for the telecom system. • La Pine is a conscientious steward of its natural environment. Action items include developing a comprehensive plan if incorporation occurs with a strong emphasis on environmental and natural resource values and concerns, assessing the quality of the Little Deschutes watershed and developing strategies to assure undeveloped natural areas. • La Pine is a well planned, sustainable community. On-going update of the Strategic Plan is the major action required to implement this goal. 3 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/7/26/2006 These activities and the lessons learned in 2000 provide strong evidence that the La Pine community understands where it is today and where it wants to be in the future. Few communities have undertaken the level of self-help that the La Pine community has undertaken. The proposal to place an incorporation measure on the ballot has come after almost a decade of studying the community's strengths and weaknesses and how incorporation could help the community improve its overall livability. 1.4 Feasibility Studies In early 1998, LCAT obtained a grant from the US Economic Development Administration to undertake a study of governance options ("Governance Study") for the La Pine area. This study was a follow-up to the Strategic Plan that had been developed previously that called for a system of governance to be in place by 2000. LCAT hired the firm of Cogan Owens Cogan from Portland to undertake a feasibility study of governance options. After soliciting public input at a March, 1998 workshop, LCAT selected three governance options for further study. These were: • Incorporation of a large city • Incorporation of a small city • Formation of a multi-purpose county service district In addition, the CAT selected five services in the analysis of each option to receive scrutiny and to provide a basis of comparison. These services were: sanitary sewer; municipal water; parks and recreation; planning and building code administration; and road construction and maintenance. Based on the findings of the Governance Study, the LCAT decided to take the first approach - the incorporation of a large area of land to form the City of La Pine. This was primarily based on the idea that the smaller service area would required a property tax rate above $5.00/$1,000 assessed valuation, almost twice that required in the large city option. However, as is noted in the Economic Feasibility Statement for the City of La Pine dated June 19, 2006, the actual permanent tax rate will be in the $1.98 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. In addition, the failure of the incorporation attempt on the November 7, 2000, ballot showed that the large city area concept was probably not in the best interests of the majority of the residents. 2. Incorporation Proposal 2.1 Reasons for Incorporation There are many reasons to incorporate the City of La Pine. Some of these are: • Deschutes County is experiencing the fastest county growth in the State of Oregon. However, incorporation of the La Pine UUC plus a some additional land for future expansion would establish local self-governance and the ability to direct resources in 4 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJCl7/2612006 areas most important to the citizens, like the need for road maintenance and planning services. Currently, the County provides all such services, including all planning services as well as maintenance of 20 miles of the approximately 30 miles of roads in the proposed city. • Enhance community identity. • Increase economic opportunities for people living in the area and reduce energy use expended in commuting to distant jobs. • Boost the area's sources of public revenue to provide services. • Address long-term issues of livability. • Relieve Deschutes County from the burden of governing all aspects of the community, which has increasingly become urban, and which has been planned to become more so. • Increase the area's political representation and clout. • Provide for local decision making and local control of matters of local concern. 2.2 Boundary The proposed incorporation boundary is shown on Map A. It includes approximately 7 square miles and about 2,000 people. There are two sets of standards for the County's approval of the boundary: 1) land use; and 2) ORS 221.040 (incorporation procedures) related to benefits. The standards under each are quite different. 2.2.1 Land Use Standards The Oregon Supreme Court in the 1985 Rajneeshpuram case (1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court) held that establishing a city boundary is a land use decision and subject to a broad review against the statewide planning goals (see detail under Section 3.0). However, it is not the same as establishing a UGB and cannot be confused with those requirements under the standards of Goal 14 when the plan is prepared. In the case of establishing the city's boundary, review for compliance with statewide planning goal is limited to whether the incorporation is compatible with the goals in a broad sense. The proposed boundary includes three major classes of land use in the County Comprehensive Plan: 1) urban, the La Pine UUC, (residential, commercial and industrial); 2) rural exception (residential and industrial); and 3) resource lands (farm, forest and flood plain). Each of these classes of land use will be discussed under Section 3 regarding the statewide planning goals and Section 4, the County Comprehensive Plan, with the objective of identifying how the incorporation proposal is compatible with the goals and plan. 5 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/7Y2612006 2.2.2 Standards of ORS 221.040 The proposed boundaries of the City of La Pine were created by the proponents after public input and discussion. ORS 221.040 gives the County the ultimate authority to modify the boundaries of the incorporation petition. The County has discretion to add properties that would receive a benefit from the City, and is required not to include properties that are shown to receive no benefit. The statute is set out in full: 221.040(2) The court may alter the boundaries as set forth in the petition to include all territory which may be benefited by being included within the boundaries of the proposed incorporated duty, but shall not modify boundaries so as to exclude any land which would be benefited by the formation of the proposed city. No land shall be included in the proposed city which will not, in the judgment of the court, be benefited. If the court determines that any land has been improperly omitted from the proposed city and the owner has not appeared at the hearing, it shall continue the hearing and shall order notice given to the nonappearing owner requiring the owner to appear before it and show cause, if any the owner has, why the owner's land should not be included in the proposed city. The notice shall be given by publication and posting in the same manner as the original notice for hearing and for the same period. For the purposes of this subsection, "owner" means the legal owner of record except that if there is a vendee under a duly recorded contract, the vendee shall be deemed to be the owner. The operative word in the statute is "benefited." This section is a discussion of why similarly situated groups of properties are included, how they would benefit from inclusion within the boundary as well as how the city will benefit from their inclusion. There may be some areas that are marginally benefited by incorporation but are included because it makes sense in terms of logical boundaries, for provision of services or for other reasons. The proposed city boundary is largely dictated by the historic pattern of development which is included in the La Pine UUC. The La Pine UUC is made up of three planning areas including the La Pine Planning Area (formerly the La Pine rural Service Center); the Neighborhood Planning Area, and the Wickiup Junction Planning Area (formerly the Wickiup Junction Rural Service Center It omits most of the outlying development around the city, which is low density and highly dispersed. This pattern continues beyond the proposed boundary somewhat south, east and west and much farther north to Sunriver. The proposed city is also smaller than the study area for the County's Regional Problem Solving Project. This area/boundary was generally chosen for three primary reasons: 1. It represents what most people living in the area identify as "La Pine." There are other subdivisions (e.g. Ponderosa Pines and Newberry Estates) that some might identify with 6 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/7/2612006 La Pine but were not included because resource lands lie between those subdivisions and the proposed city boundary resulting in a major break in the continuity of the residential development pattern. To include these subdivisions would make the boundary illogical and unwieldy. The proposed boundary allows for planning in the city at this time and community development in the near future. 2. It would provide a logical, identifiable boundary to the community and to agencies and organizations that will work with or provide services to the city. When viewing a map of southern Deschutes County, this boundary stands out and meets the test of being logical and identifiable. 3. It is the most financially feasible and viable. Revenues to support the city derive from two major sources assessed value to provide property taxes and population to provide state-shared revenues that are based on a population formula. A balance of these resources is needed to provide for long-term sources of revenue that derive from the two bases. Two other residential areas covered in the Governance Study were excluded from the incorporation proposal --Newberry Estates and Pine Crest. Ponderosa Pines, to the west of the proposed boundary, was also considered for inclusion at one time. Newberry Estates and Ponderosa Pines were not included because they were sufficiently distant from the other rural residential areas to cause an illogical boundary had they been included. Once the decision was made to exclude those resource lands immediately to the west of Highway 97 and north of Wickiup Junction, it appeared illogical to include Pine Crest. It was recognized that the year 2000 boundary proposal included a very large area and was not well received. To reach even further out would certainly detract from the merits of the new boundary as it is presented. Benefits All residents and property owners would benefit from the incorporation in the following manner: Local self-government. Residents within the boundary will elect city councilors to represent them in decisions made by the council. Examples of city decisions that would affect all residents and property owners include: long-range planning and land use; road maintenance and transportation improvements; nuisance abatement and code enforcement; environmental regulations; public safety; emergency planning and response; economic development; community events and activities; and enhanced park and recreation activities for youth and adults. City services. The Economic Feasibility Statement outlines city services to be phased in over the first three years. The following would be available to all residents and property owners: land use planning and development permitting, including a city-appointed planning commission; conveniently located building permit and inspection services; code enforcement; law enforcement (See page 15); community recreation and events; cemetery services; and business and job creation (economic development). In addition to local road maintenance (see Rural Lands discussion 7 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHT13IC17/26/2006 below), the City may be eligible for funding to improve state, county or local roads and can also develop local programs and funding sources to improve all types of roads. Improved quality of life and economic vitality. The presence of a local government to provide attention to issues and a higher level of services will increase the potential of residents to improve their quality of life. Quality of life includes a healthy environment; improved sense of economic well-being and security; lower rates of crime and delinquency through greater community awareness and provision of programs such as youth recreation; and an increase in services, particularly services to people such as health and social services. These improvements will be reflected in vigorous real estate activity and higher property values over the long-run. While all of these benefits are more difficult to prove and appear less tangible than direct city services, they are, nonetheless, real and for many, are the most important reasons to be included within the boundary. Representation of local interests. City officials will be involved in many intergovernmental activities that affect La Pine residents and property owners including land use and transportation planning; environmental regulations; economic development; and health and human services. At this time, La Pine does not have a direct voice in many of these activities and decisions. Its representation is through the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, a three-member board that is elected at-large by all county residents. It is difficult for a board with such broad geographic responsibilities to represent a subarea of the county that has unique needs and values. The following discusses the inclusion of particular groups of properties and the benefits they will receive. La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community (La Pine, Wickiup Junction and Neighborhood Planning Areas) La Pine and Wickiup Junction were each found to be an Unincorporated Community by the Department of Land Conservation and Development in its Survey of Oregon Unincorporated Communities list dated January 30, 1997. More significantly, under the auspices of the Regional Problem Solving planning program, UUC boundary was established by the County taking an exception to Goal 4 and addressing the criteria for creating a UUC under the administrative rule for Unincorporated Communities, OAR 660, Division 22. . The La Pine Planning Area, is the future "downtown" of the City of La Pine," It is served with municipal sewer and water, and has land for urban uses to serve the entire community. The core area will benefit from incorporation by the consolidation of the sewer and water districts under one governing body that also will have land use authority. Because it is the location of urban commercial and industrial land, it will be the greatest recipient of job-generating economic development activities. The La Pine UUC will be the core of the city's UGB based on the priorities outlined in ORS 197.298 because these areas have already received an exception to the statewide planning 8 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTEJM/2612006 goals for urban uses outside a UGB (the prioritization criteria are discussed in greater depth in Section 3.2). The remainder of the City may, or may not immediately be brought within the City's UGB. All areas are eligible for consideration and are expected be urbanized when and as needed to satisfy land use laws. These areas will also meet the factors considered while implementing Goal 14 because they will: a Provide land needed for long-range future population growth and employment of the entire city, such as areas for multi-family housing, commercial uses and industrial uses that cannot be provided elsewhere in the city; • Accommodate the orderly provision for public infrastructure services such as sewer and water as well as other planned services; • Permit maximum efficiency of land uses in terms of intensity and density for urban development; • Permit urban development with minimal environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; • Not require the conversion of agricultural land for urban uses; and • Be compatible with nearby agricultural uses. Section 3.14.2 discusses these factors in more detail. Rural Exception Areas Outside of the La Pine UUC The 2,529.70 acres of rural lands within the proposed city limits but located outside of the La Pine UUC are, in large part, "exception lands" because they were committed to non-resource uses at the time the County adopted its comprehensive plan or because later exceptions were taken by the County to the resource goals, and, therefore, received an exception to Goal 3 (Farmlands) and/or Goal 4 (Forestlands). As exception lands, they are first in priority for inclusion in the UGB in the same manner as the core area. However, as already indicated and will be discussed in Section 3.14, it is likely that many rural residential areas will not be required for inclusion in the city's UGB to meet urban growth needs for up to 20 years. The following is a discussion of the potential of the proposed area to be included in the boundaries of the city limits based on established criteria and other factors that would normally be considered in the analysis of a UGB under the statewide planning goals and the County's comprehensive plan.. However, it should not be interpreted that this discussion (or that these findings) indicate a proposal or recommendation to include any particular area within the city's UGB. The actual establishment of the UGB will be a decision of the City, if formed, and will require extensive study to determine the need for land and the ability of each candidate area to meet the criteria in Goal 14 and ORS 197.298, as well as other laws and rules. This evaluation is made in these findings to demonstrate that the City can satisfy these requirements when it develops its comprehensive plan. 9 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC17/26/2006 For purposes of approving formation of the City, the County must find that the lands within the boundary are reasonably likely to satisfy the requirements of the land use goals. Rural Residential Properties A total of 622.16 acres of rural residential lands are included in the proposed city boundary, Rural residential lots currently have individual sewage systems and wells and, with a few exceptions, have unimproved public roads. Rural residential properties are included because they have population needed to provide the financial and political base of the community. Even with substantial growth of the probable urban area of the city, the areas currently zoned rural residential will grow and retain approximately 85% of the population for a number of years. The population and assessed values of rural residential properties are needed to generate the revenues necessary to support the City's requirements. In addition, rural residents provide the primary pool of candidates for elected and appointed officials needed to run the city. Many owners and employees of businesses in the core area live in the rural residential areas, a factor that unites the community's interests. The incorporation of the core area without the residential area would be tantamount to incorporating a downtown without surrounding residential neighborhoods. The incorporation will make the City eligible for state gas tax revenues to provide maintenance of public roads. This will provide an entirely new service for the many unpaved roads in the proposed city that are not served by the county. The County Public Works Department has not accepted most public roads within the proposed city boundary for maintenance because they were not built to county standards. This revenue will provide an increased level of maintenance as well as other city services. All rural residential areas benefit from inclusion in the city in the same manner because neighborhoods receive benefits from being included within a city. In addition to road maintenance services, residents will enjoy neighborhood parks, locally controlled land use planning, code enforcement, law enforcement (See page 15) and other benefits that will accrue to the community as a whole over time such as improved economic and social well-being. Residential areas receive a larger proportion of the services per dollar of property taxes paid than commercial or industrial. In this way, residential neighborhoods receive financial benefits, or subsidies, from commercial and industrial areas. The area east of Wickiup Junction Planning Area contains unplatted residential land and one industrial parcel. Because it is exception land and immediately adjacent to the Planning Area it would be a priority one area based on the criteria of ORS 197.298 for inclusion and/or expansion of the city's UGB if 1) needed; 2) it is efficient and economic to extend public infrastructure services to the area, and 3) it meets the remaining factors of Goal 14. Because of its adjacency to the Planning Area, it would be a logical first candidate among rural residential land areas for inclusion in the UGB. Cagle Subdivision: This subdivision immediately west of Wickiup Junction Planning Area and Highway 97 is platted and about two-thirds built-out. It could also be a candidate for 10 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From Cmmry and EHTBJC/7/26/2006 urban expansion. It is primarily exception land with a few parcels of resource land (agricultural zoning). Subdivisions South of Burgess Road. This area contains two subdivisions--one on the east side of Huntington Road and one on the west. The one on the west has improved roads. It is included to receive other city services and to provide contiguity. The subdivision on the east would abut the new Neighborhood. These subdivisions could be candidates for future urban expansion if needed. Resource Lands Resource lands included within the boundary are classified by Deschutes County in its comprehensive plan and zoned for farm or forest uses. These are included because: Resource lands, while subject to state-imposed land use regulations, should be managed in concert with urban and rural lands to provide a coherent community. LPAC has developed a vision that includes resource lands as an integral part of the community while respecting appropriate land uses as permitted by state law. As described herein, inclusion of resource lands will allow implementation of this vision in a manner that is more creative than we have seen elsewhere in Oregon under the current bifurcated land use planning process of separating rural and resource lands from urban lands. Inclusion of resource lands will provide the City with more flexibility to plan and manage growth over the long-term. While there is a commitment to resource land protection and preservation, it is also recognized that over a long period of time, land may be needed for urban uses. For example, the federal government, as part of its "Urban Interface Plan" has designated the land east of the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BN/SF) Railroad tracks but within the proposed city limits as Community Expansion land in the BLM Upper Deschutes Management Plan and found that it is to the greater public good to make these lands available to the public for public purposes. The land is currently being used to grow lodgepole pine, a species common to a large amount of BLM forest land. In addition, the BLM has found that this particular group of parcels is not unique or in some way special for the uses to which the BLM is putting it but may become very special indeed if put to a public use by the City of La Pine in the future. One such use could be that of an airport with its attendant industrial and commercial uses or for parks and/or community centers. Such an airport would aid in the economic development of La Pine by bringing in clean industrial uses and business park development. It should be noted that, if an airport were to be constructed on the now BLM-owned land, it would also be an enhancement to the agriculture and forest uses in the vicinity. Just as is done in Redmond, an airport at La Pine could be used to headquarter airplanes used for fire suppression of forest fires, making the response time to any potential fire south of the Bend area and north of Klamath Falls that much shorter. Exclusion of resource lands could undermine one of the primary reasons for incorporation - gaining more local control over the community's destiny and 11 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC17/26/2006 establishing a greater level of community cohesiveness. Residents/property owners of resource lands should be allowed to participate in city affairs and be represented in city government. If they are not included, they will be in a situation of having to rely on the County to represent their interests. This increases the complexity of decision-making processes and also increases the likelihood of conflict between the City and County. If resource lands are excluded, but are perceived by those in the area to be geographically similar to those included, it can be confusing. This can make a "mishmash" of communications, regulations and enforcement within the overall area, with the City responsible for some matters and the County, others. Furthermore, non- residents can feel disenfranchised if they are affected by the City's actions but do not have a voice because they are residents of the County. A large number of services will also be provided to residents/property owners of resource lands, such as recreation services to adults and youth. To exclude resource lands would potentially make them ineligible to participate in city-sponsored activities, or require higher fees to participate creating "no man's lands" that are virtually surrounded by the city but not included. EFU Land West of Cagle Subdivision and Wickiup Junction Planning Area. This land is not farmed, but is forested with low value jack pine. Jack pine is not a commercial forest and is isolated from other farm and forest uses, surrounded on three sides by the Neighborhood Planning Area and rural residential uses. The fourth side is bounded by a floodplain. Huntington Road, a collector street, bisects it. It is fragmented and isolated, rendering it unsuitable for farm uses, and suitable to serve the adjacent urban uses with services. EFU and Flood Plane Lane West of the LaPine UUC: Some of this EFU-zoned land is platted and contains residences. 3rd and 6th Streets connect it to the core area. While much of it is in the floodplain or wetland, some of it on the west side could be a candidate for future development. That portion was subdivided a century ago, rendering it parcelized and irrevocably committing it to non-farm uses. If not developed, it might be used as city open space, along with the floodplain adjacent to it. Rosalyn Park District-owned Land: This parcel is zoned EFU and was acquired by the La Pine Park and Recreation District through a land swap/donation with the US Forest Service and Crown Pacific Corporation. It is currently used for a park, and is planned for future park use. BLM Parcels East of Highway 97: These parcels, considered by the BLM as difficult to manage as a forest resource by the federal agency and not unique, are designated by BLM as lands to be held for community expansion. The parcels are cut by a road and natural gas pipeline right-of-way. The forests are jack pine, and in the southeast corner, a few relatively isolated ponderosa pine near the community cemetery. The BLM parcels may be available within the near future for a variety of other public uses including a potential new airport to be located on the parcel to the east of the core area and the BN/SF Railroad. Inclusion in the 12 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/7126/2006 city boundary will permit the City to work with the BLM on planning appropriate uses in concert with preparation of its comprehensive plan. The feasibility study for the proposed La Pine Airport (2002) determined that an airport may be both feasible and desirable. Sewage Treatment Expansion Site: This site is a prime candidate for expansion of the La Pine Special Sewer District's sewage treatment plant. Part of it is within an overlay zone for deer winter range. Inclusion within the city will permit ongoing land use control and management by the city/sewer agency, and will allow protection of the deer habitat. Burgess Property: This triangular property lies between the La Pine core area and the new neighborhood site. It is included to provide contiguity. It could be a candidate for inclusion within the UGB for reasons of contiguity and because it will be surrounded by nonresource lands. EFU Land North of High School: This property is expected to be used for community educational purposes, including a possible site for Central Oregon Community College. It is not used for farm purposes, is isolated and low value. Rural Residential Land East of Neighborhood: This property, south of Burgess Road, has both residential and commercial uses on it at this time. It is suitable for inclusion in the UGB. Community Cemetery: This property, zoned for forest use, is dedicated to uses incompatible with forest uses, and is suitable for inclusion in the UGB. EFU and Flood Plain at Southwest Corner of City: This parcel is readily served by sewer and water in the new subdivision across Huntington Road. It is isolated and of low value soils. 2.3 Proposed Services LPAC carefully studied current service providers and the capability of the community to raise revenues to provide additional levels of service. The detail of these services and costs are included in the Economic Feasibility Statement filed by petitioners. In summary, the City will initially provide services at levels at or above those currently provided by Deschutes County or special districts that will be extinguished by the incorporation. Table 1 is a summary of these services, as they are contemplated to be delivered in the years following incorporation. Table 1. Summary of Services Service La Pine Wickiup Neighborhood Other Residential Farm and Forest Planning Junction Land Land Land Area Planning Area General government Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes services ("governance") 13 49482-35644 73819.4 C1.FAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTB1Cn/26/2006 Wastewater Yes Yes Yes No No collection and treatment Municipal water Yes No Yes No No Maintenance of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes public roads Land use planning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Code Enforcement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Economic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Development Community event, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes recreation and park improvements Cemetery operations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Enhanced law TBD* TBD* TBD* TBD* TBD* enforcement * To be determined by the City Council. See discussion below. Note: Services will be provided as it becomes economically possible, to all lands within the city's UGB. The users of those services will pay for costs for wastewater collection and treatment and municipal water; no part of the City's permanent tax rate will go toward providing these services. The City will continue to be a part of the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District and the La Pine Park and Recreation District. County roads that have been accepted for maintenance will continue to be maintained by the County. Highway 97 will continue to be owned and maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Law enforcement services, for at least the foreseeable future, would continue to be provided by Deschutes County, probably through a contract with the County and the Sheriff's Office. The third-year budget anticipates the need to increase the level of Sheriff services through additional funds for enhanced patrol. The law enforcement services that the proposed City might offer have not been determined because there will be a county-wide property tax levy for sheriff's services on the ballot in November. The levy has two portions, district one (up to $1.25 tax per $1,000 value) and district two (up to $1.55 tax per $1,000 value). If the City is not formed, and if the levy passes, both district taxes will apply to the area. If the City is formed, depending upon the success or failure of the sheriff's levy, the City will have a number of options available to it. 14 49482-3564473819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC17/26/2006 The City may: (1) Do nothing and utilize whatever sheriff's services are provided, whether or not the levy passes; (2) Enter into a contract for a specified level of services from the sheriff's office. If the levy fails, this will increase services. If the levy passes, it may provide for a higher or lower level of services than under the levy. The City may elect to opt out of district two (the $1.55 portion) of the sheriff's levy, reducing the tax rate to City residents. The contract payments might be funded from the City's portion of state funds, from the City's general fund, or from other sources, too numerous to analyze (sales tax, special levy, fees, etc.). This option can reduce the combined tax rate otherwise charged to land owners; (3) Provide local police services and opt out of district two (the $1.55 portion) of the sheriff's levy if it passes. Funding would come from any of the sources of City funding (general fund, state payments, special levy, sales tax, fees, etc.). Any resulting tax rate would be lower than the district two rate, unless the City Council and voters approved a higher rate; and (4) A combination of the above. Because of the uncertainty of passage of the sheriff's levy, and because the City residents must consider whether to utilize the level of services the sheriff might offer if the levy passes compared to the level if it fails, determination of how to address law enforcement services must be left to the City Council of the proposed City after incorporation. 2.4 Proposed Land Uses The La Pine UUC is smaller than the proposed city boundary. In keeping with the community's desire to retain its rural character and quality of life, petitioners fully expect that the UGB to be adopted as part of the City's comprehensive plan will remain smaller than the total city. In every respect, the UGB will be required to comply with Goal 14 and other statewide planning goals. The UGB will be expanded as needed, in compliance with the land use laws. Those areas currently planned and zoned for rural residential uses will continue to be so designated because, as discussed later, they will probably be neither suited nor needed for other urban development. Furthermore, it is the intent of the petitioners that resource land zoned farm and forest lands will, for the immediate future, continue to be protected as required by Goals 3 and 4. Issues related to resource lands included in the city boundary and the impact of this circumstance will be discussed more fully under Statewide Goal findings. However, there is nothing in Oregon laws, statewide planning goals or administrative rules that prohibit the inclusion of farm and forest resource lands within a city boundary. There are, however, laws, goals and 15 49482.35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/7/26/2006 rules that govern the inclusion of such lands within UGBs, which are not always and do not need to be co-terminus with city boundaries.2 In most cases, city limit boundaries are within and either co-terminus with or smaller than UGBs. However, there are cases in Oregon where city limit boundaries extend outside a UGB. 2.5 Conclusion and Finding While there is some differentiation in the type of services that will be provided to the urban versus non-urban portions of the city, all land proposed within the city boundary will benefit by incorporation; those areas that will benefit from wastewater and water services will pay for those additional services through service fees. Benefits include not only services but also other equally important factors such as local control and improved quality of life. All residents and land will benefit from improved road maintenance as well as other city services. Resource lands will also be provided with services outlined on page??. Their inclusion will enhance coordination of land use planning and the achievement of the community's vision to integrate urban and non-urban portions of the community into an overall plan that retains the rural character and quality of the area. 3. Statewide Planning Goals The County's analysis of the scope of inquiry regarding the Statewide Planning Goals focuses on standards established by the Oregon Supreme Court on appeals from decisions by the Land Use Board of Appeals and Oregon Court of Appeals and in cases related to the Rajneeshpuram (Wasco County) incorporation. These are still the relevant standards in addressing the statewide planning goals because there have been no changes to the statutes in the intervening 20 years, although the goals have changed slightly.3 In summary, the Supreme Court said: • A county's decision in connection with a proposed incorporation is a land use decision that must comply with the goals in a broad sense, but need not be analyzed technically. • Some of the consequences of incorporation may foreseeably affect land that remains the county's responsibility. • Goal 14 does not prohibit incorporation of a new city on rural land or require an exception to the land use goals. • The county cannot expect proponents to actually develop a comprehensive plan before an election on incorporation. 2 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court ("Rajneeshpuram" decision), Oregon Supreme Court 299 Or. 344, July 9, 1985. 3 DLCD adopted an administrative rule related to the Incorporation of New Cities (OAR 660-14- 000 to -0070) which, in effect, was nullified by the Rajneeshpuram case. However, this rule has been amended and complies with the Rajneeshpuram decision. 16 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EH7BJCn/2612006 A county discharges its planning and zoning responsibilities with regard to incorporation if it finds that "it is reasonably likely that the newly incorporated city can and will comply with the goals once the city assumes responsibility for comprehensive planning in the area to be incorporated" including the factors of Goal 14. These findings address both how the incorporation proposal complies with the goals in the broad context per the Supreme Court's 1985 decision as well as the feasibility of the City complying with the goals when the City adopts a comprehensive plan. 3.1 Goal l: Citizen Participation 3.1.1 Summary of Goal 14 Citizen Involvement Goal I calls for "the opportunity or citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. "It requires each city and county to have a citizen involvement program with six components specified in the goal. It also requires local governments to have a committee for citizen involvement (CCI) to monitor and encourage public participation in planning. 3.1.2 Citizen Involvement in Incorporation Proposal The incorporation proposal is fully a citizen-driven effort. The La Pine Political Action Committee ("LPAC") has held numerous meetings to determine city goals, services and boundaries. It has invited the public to participate and to submit comments. In prior years, building up to this 2006 incorporation, LCAT and the 2000 Incorporation Committee (an LCAT subcommittee) conducted the original Governance Study, Economic Feasibility Study and all other investigations of the original proposal. While all LCAT and subcommittee meetings were public meetings, and were well-attended by members of the public, numerous public meetings, workshops and other events were held to solicit ideas, input and questions from the public related to the incorporation studies. The 1998 Governance Study began with a public workshop to identify options for investigation. About 80 people attended this meeting. Later meetings were held to present the results of that study and to gain consensus on the large city option that was subsequently adopted by LCAT. Throughout the Incorporation Committee's further development and study of the large city option, citizens were encouraged to attend meetings --the first hour of each meeting was devoted to presentation of the work to date and a question and answer period for citizens. Every question was answered at those meetings or provided subsequently in written form. LPAC met with a number of citizen groups including La Pine Chamber of Commerce, the La Pine Industrial Group and directors of the special districts in the area. Historically, surveys influenced the decision to move forward with an incorporation proposal. In early 1998, the University of Oregon Survey Research Laboratory conducted a survey of Northern Klamath County and Southern Deschutes County. While primarily 4 Summaries of each goal are taken from DLCD's website. 17 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From Comty and EHTBJC17/2612006 related to income and social service needs, the survey included a question for only La Pine area residents about whether "La Pine needs a form of government" 51.4% answered `yes,' 37.4% answered `no' and the rest did not answer or were unsure. In August-September, 1999, LCAT conducted a door-to-door survey of La Pine residents to determine the interest in and support for incorporation every household was contacted. Of 155 responses, nearly 75% said they had enough information to make an informed decision regarding incorporation and 68% indicated that La Pine should incorporate. In November, 1999, the Portland public opinion polling firm of Davis & Hibbitts conducted a random sample survey of 300 registered voters within the year 2000 incorporation boundaries. The survey found that 90% of respondents had heard or read about incorporating La Pine. Fifty-four per cent (54%) said that it was very important or somewhat important to incorporate La Pine. In the year 2000, that incorporation attempt went to the voters and it was defeated. In the years 2000 - 2006, the pressures of urbanization and growth have shown that it remains of utmost importance to incorporate La Pine. Members of the LCAT reformed into the LPAC and continued to work on the proposal. In an effort to include as many citizens as possible and to avoid the pitfalls of the year 2000 incorporation attempt, the LPAC has held many town meetings and discussion groups to disseminate information and to receive feedback from the community. In addition, LPAC has incorporated technology in the form of a web presence to keep everyone informed on the latest activities of the LPAC in its march towards incorporation. The website can be found at http://www.lapinepac.org/ and contains the answers to frequently asked questions, the map of the proposed boundaries of the city (both in map layout and by means of aerial photography with lines superimposed), the statement of purpose of the LPAC and contact links and information. 3.1.3 Citizen Involvement in Land Use Planning. La Pine has a rich history of citizen involvement in a wide range of activities, including this latest incorporation proposal. In addition, in terms of current land use involvement, Deschutes County has involved La Pine citizens in the concept and development of the new neighborhood proposal. Proponents of incorporation have a strong interest in retaining La Pine's tradition of citizen involvement. Some have discussed an interest in developing a model form of government, through a charter process, that will build on citizen involvement to a greater degree than is typically found in city charters. The strategic planning and actions to implement the Strategic Plan demonstrate a level of involvement and participation that is exemplary. The visioning process and incorporation of new technology are examples of forward thinking about the future of the community that demonstrates commitment. 3.1.4 Conclusion and Finding The La Pine community has a rich tradition of citizen involvement. The incorporation proposal is a citizen-driven proposal that has included all segments of the community in a 18 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC17/2612006 variety of forums and activities. Furthermore, the community has demonstrated its interest and involvement in a wide range of activities, many of which have been fostered by LPAC and the LCAT before it along with the Strategic Plan. It is reasonable to assume that this will continue after incorporation with preparation and implementation of the city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances. Therefore, the proposal complies with Goal 1 and it is feasible to comply with Goal 1 in the land use planning process after incorporation. 3.2 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 3.2.1 Summary of Goal 2 Land Use Planning --Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon - statewide planning program. It says that land-use decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and that suitable "implementation ordinances " to put the plan - policies into effect must be adapted. It requires that plans be based on factual information that local plans and ordinances be coordinated with those of other jurisdictions and agencies; and that plans be reviewed periodically and amended as needed. Goal 2 also contains standards for taking exceptions to statewide goals. An exception may be taken when a statewide goal cannot or should not be applied to a particular area or situation. 3.2.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation The proposed incorporation, per se, does not affect land use. The County's comprehensive plan stays in effect until the City adopts its own plan in compliance with the statewide planning goals. The test here is to determine whether, on the face of it, the proposal violates the statewide planning goals and/or whether it is feasible for the new city to develop a comprehensive plan that meets the statewide planning goals, and to meet that requirement within four years of incorporation. Part of the consideration is whether any new exceptions will have to be taken to the statewide planning goals when the plan is prepared. There are two types of exceptions that theoretically could be required in a case like this: 1) an exception to permit urban uses or public facilities outside a UGB that have not already been granted an exception; and 2) an exception to permit inclusion of land within a UGB that does not fit the standards and prioritization system outlined in Goal 14 and ORS 197.298. ORS 197.298 provides a prioritization scheme for inclusion of lands within a UGB as follows: a. First priority island that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action plan. b. If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by 19 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBIC/7/26/2006 exception areas unless such resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710. c. If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197 247 (1991 Edition). d. If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. e. Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use. f. Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons; (a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; (b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands. 3.2.3 First Priority Exception Areas Within the boundaries of the proposed city there are no urban reserve areas as defined in subsection (a) of ORS 197.298. Therefore, first priority will be given to exception lands to be included within the city's UGB. Most of the area proposed to be within the new city's boundary are lands for which an exception has already been taken. In August 2000 the La Pine UUC boundary was expanded to include the following additional areas to implement the RPS project and meet other identified community needs: BLM Tract 38 (518 acres) Baldwin-Herndon Oregon Trust (66 acres) and Wickiup Junction RSC (102 acres). At the same time, three planning areas were created in the La Pine UUC encompassing the following acreage: La Pine (982 acres), Neighborhood (571 acres) and Wickiup Junction (102 acres) The La Pine Planning Area encompasses the former La Pine UUC plus 13 acres of the Baldwin- Herndon Oregon Trust Property. The Neighborhood Planning Area includes all of the BLM property identified as Tract 38 and 53 acres of the Baldwin-Herndon Oregon Trust property. The Wickiup Junction Planning Area is identical to the former Wickiup Junction RSC. These areas are included within the Proposed incorporation boundary. The Neighborhood Planning Area is being and will continue to be developed with residential uses, including single-family and multi-family dwellings, a limited amount of commercial uses, a school, senior assisted living facilities and other community/civic uses, and open space and parks. 20 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From Co mty and EI-TTBJC/7/26/2006 The 13 acres of Baldwin-Herndon Oregon Trust property, between Huntington and Couch Roads near the La Pine High School, was added to the La Pine Planning Area for future community uses, such as a pool, performing arts center and community education facilities. The need for these types of facilities was identified in design workshops held in 1998 as part of the Deschutes County Regional Problem Solving planning program and reaffirmed in a subsequent workshop conducted by the La Pine Community Action Team in April 2000. A new plan designation, "Community Facility", was created to include this property and the adjacent land that consists of the existing school site. This site was formerly designated as "Residential" in the La Pine Planning Area. The expansion of the La Pine UUC boundary in 2000 was done under the auspices of Regional Problem Solving. It was completed by taking an exception to statewide planning Goal 4 and addressing the criteria for enlarging a UUC under the administrative rule for Unincorporated Communities, OAR 660, Division 22. The rural residential land 622.16 acres (see Table) are also exception lands. Their inclusion within the city boundaries is not inconsistent with the County's plan or statewide planning goals. The LPAC assumes that City services that would be provided to the area are the same as those that the county or a special district is permitted to provide in a rural area, such as road maintenance and improvement, law enforcement (See page 15), parks and recreation, etc. 3.2.4 Lower Priority Farm and Forest Lands The proposed incorporation boundary contains 258.62 acres of land zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and 1352.01 acres of land zoned for Forest Use. There are no statewide planning goals or laws that prohibit these areas from being included within city boundaries, and a number of cities in Oregon have one or both of these uses included within their city boundaries but outside UGBs.5 The intent of proponents is to maintain appropriate lands as farm and forest lands for the short term future, with some exceptions. The exceptions relate to the BLM lands east of the BN/SF Railroad tracks that are identified by that agency as Community Expansion land that could be made available to the City for public uses, and for economic development (Goal 9). 3.2.5 Timetable for Plan Development The City will have four years from the date of incorporation to develop a comprehensive plan and implementing regulations, or until about December 2010. The Economic Feasibility Study includes a budget for the first three years of city operations. This budget is required by law to assess the economic feasibility for city formation and to establish the basis of the proposed permanent tax rate. However, it is important to note that the future city council is not bound to adopt these budgets. After its first year of operation, 5 The issue of whether rural land could be included within a UGB was one of the points of appeal in the 1985 Rajneeshpuram Supreme Court decision. The Court upheld appellants' position that this issue is not a properly dealt with at the time of incorporation but in the subsequent development of the comprehensive plan. 21 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From Canty and EHTBIC/7/2612006 the new city is required to follow Oregon Budget Law, which among other provisions, requires that a budget committee be appointed that includes lay citizens. Through the budget process, a different budget could be developed and adopted by the City Council and still be within the city's permanent tax rate. Therefore, the Economic Feasibility Statement should be viewed as financially conservative and only as an indicator of the proponents' intent to provide various programs and services at projected levels. As with all local governments, the actual budget process and decisions will require a review and assessment of priorities measured against costs and revenues. The Economic Feasibility Study assumes that the City will contract with Deschutes County during its first full year of operations (FY2007-2008) primarily for land use permitting services; the City will still be operating under Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances. Beginning in FY2008-2009, the City would establish its own planning department and begin preparation of its comprehensive plan. In FY2010-2011, a grant of $20,000 is included to help offset the costs of preparing this plan. Based on recent history, both the cost of preparing the plan and the availability of such a grant are conservative. (The City of Damascus received a grant.) The City will have three general approaches available to develop its plan: 1. Adopt Deschutes County's Plan and implementing ordinances with a minimum number of changes needed to comply with the statewide planning goals. 2. Begin the planning process from "scratch" a total re-look at the future of the area. 3. Take an approach somewhere between 1 and 2. Given the community's objective to keep the current character and quality of life, it is reasonable to assume that either option 1 or 3 is the most likely approach. It is reasonable to assume that a plan of this magnitude could be accomplished in approximately two years (FY2006-2008). It appears very unlikely that it would be necessary or desirable to start from scratch. The community has been very involved in the County's planning activities over the years and this incorporation has not been proposed as a means to effect radical land use changes from those established in the County Comprehensive Plan. In any regard, the City will be required to develop a budget and funding sources to conduct the necessary level of work to accomplish its approach. 3.2.6 Conclusion and Findings The proposed boundary includes 2568.36 acres of exception lands. Most of these acres are within the La Pine UCC and could be made available for urban use within the city's future UGB based on the priorities established in ORS 197.298. The remaining exception areas can remain within a rural density zoning district within the city's boundaries and be in compliance with statewide planning goals or may be subject to exceptions to those goals. Farm and forest lands included in the city boundary are not prohibited by state law or statewide planning goals and will be benefited by being included in the city boundary, based on the reasons outlined in Section 2.2. 22 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/7/2612006 It is feasible that the City will be able to complete the development of a comprehensive plan within 4 years of incorporation based on the optional approaches available and the ability of the City to budget and obtain funding for the preparation of the plan. The City will be obliged to follow state law and the statewide planning goals in preparation of its plan and implementing ordinances, including addressing the exceptions already taken by the County and any new exceptions that may be necessary. 3.3 Goal 3: Agriculture Lands 3.3.1 Summary of Goal 3 Agricultural Lands Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands. "It then requires counties to inventory such lands and to 'preserve and maintain " them through exclusive farm use (EFU) zoning (per ORS Chapter 215). OAR 660, Division 033 is the applicable administrative rule for agricultural land. 3.3.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation The proposed incorporation includes 258.62 acres of land zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The reasons for including EFU lands within the proposal are listed in Section 2.2. For the most part, the La Pine area is not a major farming area. The farm land included in the proposed boundary is significantly isolated from other major farming areas in the county, which are to the north. EFU land within the proposed boundary is classified by the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as "riparian meadows, grazing and meadow hay." These lands are not considered suitable for crops because of the high elevation (4,000'), low rainfall and potential of damage from frost or mid-summer hail storms. Studies that the County conducted in 1992 found that the La Pine subzone is "somewhat different from the other subzones in that farm sales are less than farm use values due to agricultural practices that depend to a greater degree than in the other subzones on livestock grazing on non-irrigated pasture. Riparian meadows are subject to restrictions on grazing in order to protect water quality and fish habitat, rendering them not suitable for many historical agricultural uses. Specific parcels are discussed in Section 2.2.2 at pages 11-13 above. Those discussions are incorporated by reference herein. The incorporation, per se, does not affect agricultural land. The land remains planned and zoned for agricultural use until such time as the City adopts a comprehensive plan and rezones the land for other uses in compliance with the statewide planning goals. Impacts to EFU land would not occur unless they are eventually included within a UGB or rezoned for other rural uses such as rural residential. Given the amount of rural residential land that is already platted in Deschutes County and the La Pine area, and the environmental regulations that apply, it is unlikely that additional rural residential land could be justified through a new exception to Goal 3. 23 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and FHTBJC17/26/2006 The City will be required to demonstrate that EFU lands are needed for development to include them in the UGB. With exception lands in the La Pine Planning Area, the Wickiup Junction Planning Area and the Neighborhood Planning Area, it is unlikely that additional EFU lands will be needed for urban development for the near term future. Furthermore, as stated previously, proponents do not intend to plan and zone lands currently zoned for EFU for either urban or residential development. The community is committed to the recreation, environmental and water resource values of the Little Deschutes River and its associated floodplain. Development of the resource lands would not be consistent with its vision to maintain the rural character of the area.6 It is expected that the City's comprehensive plan will address these values consistent with the statewide planning goals. There may be some perceived impacts to EFU lands included within the city boundaries due to the fact that, in most cities, EFU lands are not included within city boundaries. Cities are established primarily to provide urban infrastructure services and local governance. However, in this case, the presence of city boundaries cannot be equated totally with urban infrastructure services. The development history and pattern of the area dictates the chosen governance solution, which necessitates inclusion of EFU land to make a logical, identifiable boundary. Another concern may relate to the potential impact of urban development on farming practices on EFU lands. However, any potential impact to farming practices, real or perceived, has or will occur as a result of rural residential development beside EFU lands in the La Pine UUC. Due to the fact that most of the EFU land is used for grazing livestock, with meadow hay production as the only crop, there is very little potential impact to farming practices. Part of the concern with inclusion of EFU lands may relate to state laws and administrative rules. These laws and rules address the role and responsibility of counties in regulating EFU land. The fact that cities are not addressed may raise the concern that cities do not have the same responsibilities to regulate EFU lands. However, it is reasonable to assume that the Legislature and LCDC intended that these laws apply to EFU lands wherever they occur, not just within counties; the fact that cities are not mentioned is primarily because most city boundaries are within UGBs. However, outside UGB's, it is reasonable to interpret the laws also require cities to protect EFU lands. Some may maintain that cities are not equipped to regulate EFU lands that this is the regulatory domain of counties. The City would be just as capable as a county to regulate farm lands. In addition, the City has the option to contract with Deschutes County to administer EFU lands, if desirable and agreeable to both. EFU lands are protected by state law differently than other land use categories but state law permits a wide array of uses within EFU lands, either outright or conditionally, that are not pure agriculture. Some of the conditional uses may be desirable in this area and some may not be desirable. Therefore, city regulation of conditional uses on EFU lands within the context of a total community is desirable and makes sense in this case. Inclusion of EFU 6 This was further re-enforced in a community visioning process that occurred April 28-29, 2000. 24 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBIC/7/2611006 lands will, therefore, eliminate any future conflict between the City and County in terms of how the County would regulate these lands in the future if they were not included within city boundaries. Finally, some may be concerned that inclusion of EFU lands within a city boundary may establish a precedent other cities may desire to include EFU lands, or may decide to rezone land to EFU as an anti-growth measure. First, as a precedent, it may not be a negative in all cases if the purpose is to preserve open space, address resource protection issues such as water quality or to have control of city interests such as protecting a watershed. Second, cities will need to continue to provide adequate land for urban development within UGBs. If cities rezoned land as an anti-growth measure, they would violate Goal 14 and state statutes/rules that require cities to maintain an adequate supply of land for urban development. Therefore, when needed, there are safeguards to prevent the indiscriminate inclusion of EFU lands within city boundaries or rezoning of urban land to EFU. 3.3.3 Conclusion and Finding Inclusion of EFU land within city boundaries is not in violation of Goal 3. Furthermore, the City can develop a comprehensive plan that will continue to protect EFU lands in compliance with the statewide planning goals and their implementing administrative rules. 3.4 Goal 4: Forest Lands 3.4.1 Summary of Goal 4 Forest Lands This goal defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory them and adopt policies and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest uses. " 3.4.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation The incorporation proposal includes 1352.01 acres of land planned and zoned for forest use. Most, if not all of this amount is owned by the federal government and is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The biggest forest parcel is the site that has been designated as Community Expansion land by the Bureau of Land Management along the east side of the BN/SF Railroad tracks, across which runs an underground natural gas pipeline. 3.4.3 Conclusion and Finding Inclusion of forest land within city boundaries is not in violation of Goal 4 and its implementing administrative rules (OAR 660, Division 04). Furthermore, the City can develop a comprehensive plan that will continue to protect forest lands in compliance with the statewide planning goals. 'A number of cities do have EFU land within their boundaries. In some cases, EFU land was included as a means of growth management and to protect lands for farming until needed for urban development. In other cases, EFU land is used for major public facilities such as water reservoirs and watersheds and wastewater treatment facilities. 25 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC17/2612006 3.5 Goal 5: Open Spaces and Natural Resources 3.5.1 Summary of Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources Goal 5 encompasses 12 different types of resources, including wildlife habitats, mineral resources, wetlands and waterways. It establishes a process through which resources must be inventoried and evaluated. I fa resource or site is found to be important, the local government has three policy choices: to preserve the resource, to allow the proposed uses that conflict with it, or to establish some sort of a balance between the resource and those uses that would conflict with it. 3.5.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation Deschutes County identified significant open space and natural resources at the time the Comprehensive Plan was initially acknowledged and then undertook an update in 1994 to comply with the Goal 5 administrative rule. Resources identified within the proposed boundary are: • The Little Deschutes River (floodplain, wetland and riparian resources) corridor • Highway 97, Huntington Road and Burgess Road Scenic Roadway Corridors • Deer Migration Corridor (entire area outside the Planning areas) • Historic Resources • Wetlands • Open Space Other than the scenic roadway corridors, no Goal 5 resources were identified for the Planning areas. These resources and how they are currently protected and managed by Deschutes County are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.11. The Little Deschutes River riparian/floodplain area also contains associated wetlands, inventoried as part of the national Wetlands Inventory by the U.S. Department of Interior. Federal and state laws, as well as county laws, regulate fill and removal; incorporation will not change these regulations. Highway 97 through the commercial core of La Pine has been identified in the TSP and in Highway 97 corridor studies as a major barrier for pedestrians to traverse and for autos and pedestrians to cross safely. The City will need to consider this issue and balance the potential conflict in its comprehensive plan and regulations. Landscape Management and Floodplain Standards for the Little Deschutes River are compatible with the community's intent to maintain the current land use status of the areas 26 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From Co mty and EATBJC/7/26/2006 through which the river flows either farmland or rural residential. None of the UCC is affected by these regulations. The Wildlife Area regulations do not apply within unincorporated communities. In the balance of the area, the regulations limit certain land uses, such as the requirement that land divisions in the RR-10 zone can be permitted only as cluster developments on at least 20 acres with 80% open space. Through the RPS project the County carefully examined impacts to the deer migration area caused by the current level of rural residential development that had been permitted and determined that transferring development credits to the new neighborhood was preferable and was less of an impact than would otherwise occur. 3.5.3 Conclusion and Finding The proposed boundary includes three distinct types of natural resources that are protected by the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and its regulations. These plan designations and regulations will remain in place until the City adopts its own plan and regulations. The values represented by these resources are important to the community and there is every expectation that it will want to provide the same levels of protection. There will be a need to develop local transportation standards for Highway 97 that will evaluate and balance pedestrian and local traffic needs when the City develops its plan and regulations. 3.6 Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality 3.6.1 Summary of Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resources Quality --This goal requires local comprehensive plans and implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as groundwater pollution. 3.6.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation The proposed incorporation has no effect on the requirement to maintain local comprehensive plans and implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations regarding air and water quality. These requirements apply equally to cities and counties. As with Goal 5, the incorporation could enhance and further the water quality goals. Incorporation will aid air quality by providing jobs and services close to residences, reducing vehicular use and pollution. The City will be required to address Goal 6 in development of its comprehensive plan. 3.6.3 Conclusion and Finding The proposed incorporation is consistent with Goal 6. The incorporation could enhance success of the water quality project and further the project's goals. 27 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTB3C/ /26/2006 3.7 Goal 7: Natural Disasters and Hazards 3.7.1 Summary of Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards Goal 7 deals with development in places subject to natural hazards such as floods or landslides. It requires that jurisdictions apply "appropriate safeguards " (floodplain zoning, for example) when planning for development there. 3.7.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation The land area adjacent to the Little Deschutes River has been designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a flood hazard area. It has been zoned Flood Plain by Deschutes County and carries restrictions on development within the 100-year floodplain. These regulations are in addition to those of the Landscape Management Overlay Zone that protects the scenic, open space, wetland and riparian qualities of the Little Deschutes. The undeveloped portion of the floodplain will likely never be subjected to development pressure. The problem of wildfire is a natural hazard that has received considerable study by Deschutes County as part of the RPS project. Wildfire is a result of natural (lightning strikes in the summer) and manmade causes, but in any regard, is exacerbated by human settlement in the dry pine forests of the area. The new neighborhood concept, to reduce the number of new housing units in low density rural settings, is designed to reduce the incidence of wildfire and threats to human life and investment, as well as reduce the impact to the natural environment. As indicated previously, incorporation could enhance the success of the RPS project. 3.7.3 Conclusion and Finding Natural hazards in the area include flooding along the Little Deschutes River and wildfire. The Flood plain protections under Deschutes County will continue until the City adopts its own comprehensive plan and development regulations. Incorporation may enhance the success of the RPS project, thereby furthering goals to reduce the potential for wildfire. The incorporation proposal does not violate Goal 7 and it is feasible for the City to meet Goal 7 during preparation of its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances. 3.8 Goal 8: Recreation 3.8.1 Summary of Goal 8 Recreation Needs This goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas and facilities for recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for them. It also sets forth detailed standards for expedited siting of destination resorts. 3.8.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation Recreation is a key value of the residents within the proposed incorporation area. While there are major recreation opportunities of statewide significance in the immediate area, such 28 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From Cotmty and EHTB7C/7/26/2006 as La Pine State Park and Newberry Crater, the community lacks community-level recreation facilities such as swimming pools, ball fields, playgrounds and recreation centers. Deschutes County does not provide such recreation programs. The La Pine Park and Recreation District provides limited services to an area that exceeds the size of the proposed incorporation. As the area grows, there is increasing concern that there are few recreation opportunities for youth and that this could lead to increased delinquency. The permanent tax rate proposed as part of the incorporation proposal includes some funding for enhanced recreation. Furthermore, incorporation may provide more focus and support for eventual approval of a permanent tax rate and grant funding for the La Pine Park and Recreation District which currently supports itself on minimal non-property tax revenue such as fees. 3.8.3 Conclusion and Finding Recreation is a key issue and value in the La Pine community. Incorporation will enhance the area's ability to plan, fund and provide recreation facilities and programs in compliance with Goal 8. 3.9 Goal 9: Economic Development 3.9.1 Summary of Goal 9 Economy of the State Goal 9 calls for diversification and improvement of the economy It asks communities to inventory commercial and industrial lands, project future needs for such lands, and plan and zone enough land to meet those needs. 3.9.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation Economic development and diversification is a key issue for the La Pine community. The La Pine Strategic Plan is strongly directed toward improving the local economy. The retirement population that historically settled much of La Pine in the past is slowly decreasing in proportion to the number of young people and families. However, major employment opportunities are located primarily in Bend, a 30-mile commute. There are few family-wage jobs in La Pine but the potential exists to increase jobs with incorporation. Employers are dissuaded from locating in La Pine today because of the lack of a city government that can provide local planning, services, leadership and business support. The proposed incorporation boundary contains 764.64 acres of land currently planned and zoned for commercial and industrial land, including land in the WC zoned for commercial industrial and mixed use. The inventory of industrial and commercial land that exists in the La Pine and Wickiup Junction Planning Areas could significantly meet the needs for current and future population growth within the proposed city, including for job growth. These areas are provided with municipal sewer and water facilities and have adequate transportation from Highway 97 and the BN/SF Railroad. There is also the potential for an airport and ancillary industrial and commercial uses which would enhance La Pine's economic development by bringing in clean industry and business park development east of the City on the BLM- owned land. 29 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/1/26/2006 With incorporation, the City will assume ownership and management of the La Pine Industrial Park that is currently owned by Deschutes County and managed by the La Pine Industrial Group, a local nonprofit organization. The City will be required to comply with ORS 197.707-717 and OAR Chapter 660-009 regarding economic development opportunities. For example, an economic analysis will be required to determine what level of support for economic development is adequate for current and future population at the time the comprehensive plan is developed. The Strategic Plan already provides a strong policy basis for the city's future economic development strategy and planning. As detailed under Section 3.14 below, the proposed city boundaries contain healthy areas of industrial and commercial land for current and future population that can also serve population and employment needs for a broader segment of the population in south Deschutes County. 3.9.3 Conclusion and Finding Incorporation will support Goal 9 by providing local government leadership to provide the necessary planning and promote job growth. Significant areas are already planned and zoned for industrial and commercial use to meet current and future needs. In addition, the City will gain ownership of the La Pine Industrial Park that will be an immediate economic asset to the City. City financial support will enhance development of the park and promote job growth. The Strategic Plan, land availability for economic development needs and importance that the community places on economic development activity demonstrate the feasibility to comply with Goal 9, state law and the administrative rule during development of the City's comprehensive plan. 3.10 Goal 10: Housing 3.10.1 Summaryof Goal 10 Housing - This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate needed housing types (typically, multifamily and manufactured housing). It requires each city to inventory its buildable residential lands, project future needs for such lands, and plan and zone enough buildable land to meet those needs. It also prohibits local plans from discriminating against needed housing types. 3.10.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation While Goal 10 applies to "cities," the statutes and Goal 10 Housing Rule (OAR 660-008) relate more specifically to areas within UGBs and the assurance that adequate land is provided for future urban housing needs. Compliance with Goal 10 requires coordination of population projections with the County under ORS 195.036; preparation of buildable lands inventories under ORS 197.296 and addressing "needed housing" under ORS 197.303. The County approved development of the Neighborhood as primarily a residential community, or smaller lots in order to conserve land and encourage pedestrian friendly neighborhood activities. 30 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/7/26/2006 Earlier, Deschutes County inventoried buildable residential land in the La Pine incorporation area and found that there are enough rural vacant buildable lots within the proposed boundary to significantly increase the population. The focus has been primarily on ways to avert environmental degradation through continued provision of septic tanks on low density lots. The question of "need" per se was not the focus of the study because much of the area subject to the study was approved prior to adoption of the statewide planning goals and might not be approved today, at least in terms of location. In the development of its comprehensive plan, the City will be required to investigate the issue of need. Incorporation will allow the area's full housing needs to be addressed in a way that they cannot be today as a conglomeration of resource, rural and urban lands in an unincorporated status. The question at this stage is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the City can provide adequate land to provide for a full range of housing types, including costs for various income levels. The following factors lead to a positive conclusion that it is reasonably likely that housing needs can be met: • In Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan for the La Pine WC it was found that there is enough residential undeveloped land within the proposed boundary to significantly increase the population. • Historically, the area has attracted single family housing at the low to moderate end of the cost spectrum. "Stick-built," modular and mobile homes are all prevalent in the area and are interspersed. • The area lacks urban density housing, including multi-family. However, at the time that the La Pine UUC amendment was made, there were 94 vacant residential lots within the UUC boundaries that had (or would have) public sewer and water. These lands could be potential multi-family areas. • The Neighborhood Planning area is being, and will continue to be developed with residential uses, including single-family and multi-family dwellings, a limited amount of commercial uses, a school, senior assisted living facilities and other community/civic uses, and open space and parks. • A 1994 inventory of land in the La Pine UUC indicates a total of 223 residential building lots of which 94 were vacant. A 2000 GIS inventory tallies a total of 335 acres of urban residential land. The La Pine Planning Area is served with municipal sewer and water to permit urban level densities. The April, 2000 Strategic Plan goal for an affordable and equitable full service city, with the action to develop a plan to address La Pine's housing needs, demonstrates the community's commitment to address affordable housing. 31 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTB3C/7/26/2006 3.10.3 Conclusion and Finding A number of factors indicate that it is reasonably likely that the City can meet future housing needs within the future UGB. The La Pine, Neighborhood and Wickiup Junction Planning Areas contain lands that are currently or could be made available for urban density housing on public sewer and water. In addition, the rural residential areas can continue to offer housing at a variety of densities, on sewer and water. 3.11 Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services 3.11.1 Summary of Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services Goal 11 calls for efficient planning of public services such as sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. The goal's central concept is that public services should be planned in accordance with a community's needs and capacities rather than be forced to respond to development as it occurs. 3.11.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation The area is currently served by several providers: • The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District, which provides fire service to a large area of south Deschutes County both inside and outside the proposed city boundary • Deschutes County Sheriff, who provides law enforcement services to the unincorporated area and on a contractual basis to the City of Sisters (See discussion page 15). • La Pine Special Sewer District, that provides sewer service to the La Pine UUC • La Pine Water District, that provides water to the La Pine UUC • La Pine Park and Recreation District, that serves a much larger area than the proposed city boundary • Bend-La Pine School District, that serves all of the Bend area and south Deschutes County Incorporation will permit the consolidation of the sewer, water and other services, thereby decreasing the number of service providers, facilitating improved coordination and planning and enhancing services. Proponents of incorporation are proposing that the City remain within the fire and park and recreation districts and continue to receive law enforcement from the County Sheriff. (See discussion on page 15). Under the proposed permanent tax rate, it is not expected that the City could withdraw from the fire district or provide a major increase in law enforcement over that now being provided, but could enhance current services under service contracts with the fire district and County. The park and recreation district does not have a voter-approved permanent tax rate and, therefore, its ability to remain the primary provider over the long run is less certain. 32 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTEIC/712612006 The urban area will likely have less than 2,000 people at the time an urban growth boundary is established.8 Therefore, the City will not be required to prepare a Public Facilities Plan pursuant to OAR 660-011 Public Facilities Planning Rule. Nonetheless, incorporation will facilitate improved public facility planning by consolidating water and sewer services in one unit of government and also provide a local unit of government responsible for local roads and transportation planning. Sewer services will continue to be provided to the current La Pine UUC commensurate with approved plans and already approved exceptions to the statewide planning goals. Further expansion to provide services will be limited by the statewide planning goals that do not permit extension of sewer and water services outside UGBs as well as the economics of providing such services. Water service will continue to be provided to the La Pine UUC Wickiup Junction has a community water system provided by a private company. Whether this system is eventually taken over by the City will depend on the area's future status as rural or urban as well as the financial capability of the City's system to purchase the private company's system and make upgrades that might be needed to provide an urban level of service. Road maintenance and improvement is the area's single greatest service need. Highway 97 will continue to be the responsibility of the Oregon Department of Transportation and county roads will continue to be the responsibility of Deschutes County, although there are provisions within state law for the City to request transfer and responsibility of county roads. It is not expected that the City would request such a transfer for a very long time, if ever, because of significant needs that will require resources of both the County and City to address over a long period of time. Incorporation will bring all the public roads under the jurisdiction of the City for maintenance and improvement. An LPAC-sponsored road services committee has developed a plan for providing these services with the recognition that immediate, projected funding will not be adequate to provide much actual improvement of roads. However, projected funding through state-shared revenues will provide a certain level of funding for maintenance This will enhance the area's overall livability and improve property values. Funding for road improvements could come over time from sources such as local improvement districts, grants, systems development charges and other sources available to cities. Cities may also utilize funding sources such as serial levies and street utility taxes. Thus, incorporation increases the funding options the community has to maintain and improve roads in the area. (See Goal 12 for discussion concerning Transportation Planning). Schools. The Bend-La Pine School District will continue to provide schools to the La Pine area. School districts are not directly affected by incorporation because different statutes govern their organization than those that affect special districts. ORS Chapter 195 requires that cities and counties enter into land use planning coordination agreements with special districts and urban service agreements with service providers related to 8 See discussion in Section 3.14.2. 33 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC17/2612006 provision of urban services within UGB's. The City of La Pine will be required to develop these agreements with Deschutes County and the special districts that will provide an urban service, as defined in the statute, to areas within the UGB. The process has already started with the development of memoranda of understanding (MOU's) that the former LCAT developed with each special district that is affected by the incorporation. 3.11.3 Conclusion and Finding Incorporation will promote Goal 11 through enhanced planning for public facilities to meet current and projected growth. The comprehensive plan for the community will permit planning based on the capacity of the land and water resources area to provide public facilities. Compliance with the Public Facilities Planning Rule will likely not be required because the urban area will contain less than 2,000 people. However, the City will be required to comply with ORS 195 regarding coordination and urban service agreements, a process that has been initiated with development of memoranda of understanding regarding incorporation. Every expectation exists that the City can comply with Goal 11 during development of its comprehensive plan. 3.12 Goal 12: Transportation 3.12.1 Summary of Goal 12 Transportation The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. " It asks for communities to address the needs of the "transportation disadvantaged. " 3.12.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation South Deschutes County has been the subject of three transportation studies and plans in recent years. In 1994, ODOT completed a Highway 97 Corridor Study. Deschutes County completed and adopted a county-wide Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) in 1998 (Ordinance 98-084) and subsequently developed the 1999 La Pine & Wickiup Junction Local Street, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for La Pine and Wickiup Junction (LSBP). The LSBP contains a good summary of current transportation facilities in the UUC and RSC, which was the focus of the study (Table 3). Table 3: Summary of Transportation Facilities Mode of Transportation Summary of Existing Usage and Operational Concerns Automobile Dominant mode of transportation throughout the community and for through traffic. Trucking Significant through traffic on Highway 97. Limited parking and lack of adequate circulation associated with many commercial uses on Highway 101. 34 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTB]C/7/26/2006 Truck traffic between Highway 97 and the industrial zoned land including Reed Road, Foss Road, Finley Butte Road and Russell Road. Truck traffic will increase in the future as the industrial land becomes developed. Recreational Vehicle (RV) Through traffic on Highway 97. Limited parking and lack of adequate circulation associated with many commercial uses on Highway 101. Transit Greyhound currently has one daily Hwy 97 route with a stop at the Wickiup Junction rideshare center at Burgess Rd. & Hwy 97. Deschutes County provides a special transportation service (dial-a-ride) for elderly and disabled in the La Pine area four days a week. Bicycle Existing designated bicycle routes (shoulder bikeways) are limited to H 97, Huntington Road and Finley Butte Road. Walking Existing pedestrian facilities are currently limited to sidewalks on Hwy 97; a portion of Huntington Road; limited sections of 1St, 3rd, and 4th Streets; Bluewood Street/Place; and Coach Road along the school frontage. Rollerblading/Skateboarding None observed however rollerblading/skateboarding might be resent in the vicinity of the schools and arks. Electric Carts None observed however the potential for electric cart usage has been mentioned with the potential "new neighborhood" adjacent and north of La Pine. Rail The BNSF Railroad transports freight through La Pine. No passenger service is currently available. Source: La Pine & Wickiup Local Street, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan prepared by TriLand Design Group, Inc., Tigard, OR, 1998-99. Major transportation issues are discussed in the TSP. The primary mode of transportation is and will remain private autos. Highway 97 is a major north-south interstate corridor that has an increasing amount of traffic, including major truck traffic. The conflict between through-movements and local use will continue to increase as will the difficulty of crossing the highway within the La Pine and Wickiup areas. The TSP recommends a major highway project to realign Highway 97 in Wickiup to straighten out a curve and provide a grade-separation with the BN/SF Railroad this is the only location without such a grade separation anywhere on the 35 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJCI//26/2006 state highway system.9 The TSP also provides for an eventual signalized crossing on Highway 97 at 1 st/Reed. Incorporation will enhance the Highway 97 Corridor Plan by providing more organized community involvement and a local agency to assist with implementation of the results. Alternatives to the automobile will be difficult to achieve with or without incorporation given the low density pattern of residential development and overall low population levels in this area of the state. Even with growth in the neighborhood area, there likely will not be sufficient population to consider such alternatives as passenger train service or even frequent transit. Peak-hour commuter transit is a possibility however, as discussed in the TSP. Some opportunities to improve bike and pedestrian facilities are included in the LSBP. The local road system outside the Planning Areas today is described under Goal 11. Even fewer sidewalks and bike paths exist outside the Planning Areas. Commercial air transportation is available in Klamath Falls and Redmond and Sunriver has a general aviation airport. There has been a study of the feasibility of establishing a general aviation airport east of La Pine. The proponents of the City anticipate following up on that study to establish such an airport. The City will be required to develop a TSP in compliance with OAR 660-012 the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR applies differently to UGBs greater than 25,000 than those with less than 25,000, but in all respects, the TSP must be consistent with land use. The urban area will likely be less than 2,000 people and land use alternatives may not be a requirement of TPR compliance; nonetheless, there may be opportunities for land use alternatives within the UGB. For example, as discussed previously, incorporation will enhance the ability of the area to attract jobs, thereby reducing the number of workers that must commute to Bend and elsewhere. Many of the ideas that were developed during the visioning process are compatible with TPR guidelines. Incorporation will provide the opportunity to provide more detailed focus on transportation issues in this part of the county as the City prepares its comprehensive plan, TSP and local street plans. Immediate improvements will be in local road maintenance and their potential improvement over a long period of time. 3.12.3 Conclusion and Finding The south Deschutes County has been the subject of several transportation studies in the past years. The Highway 97 Corridor Plan may identify more issues and opportunities for this section of the highway corridor. The City will be required to address Goal 12 in the development of a comprehensive plan, and to develop a TSP in compliance with the TPR for the rural and urban areas. Incorporation will assist transportation planning being undertaken by Deschutes County and ODOT. Substantial evidence exists that the City can comply with Goal 12 when it develops its Comprehensive Plan and TSP. 9 According to Deschutes County transportation planner Steve Jorgensen, rail traffic consists of 10-12 freight trains per day and this is anticipated to increase to as many as 30 over the coming years. 36 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC17/2612006 3.13 Goal 13: Energy Conservation 3.13.1 Summary of Goal 13 Energy Goal 13 declares that "land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. " 3.13.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation The County Comprehensive Plan identifies the presence of geothermal resources in the vicinity of Newberry crater. At this time, these resources have not been developed. Most family wage jobs are located in Bend, forcing a 60-mile roundtrip commute for most working people. As discussed under Goal 9, incorporation will promote local job growth and potentially lessen the number of trips to Bend and elsewhere. In addition, as increased services are provided in La Pine, fewer trips will be needed to Bend. These factors will reduce the amount of gasoline consumption. Energy consumption of other energy sources will likely be unaffected by incorporation because of the amount of growth projected for the area, with or without incorporation. Increased job growth, with accompanying energy consumption, will take place here instead of elsewhere as opposed to not at all. Therefore, potential new employers will have to consider the availability and cost of energy here as compared to alternative locations. Development patterns that affect energy consumption are already established. There are possibilities, over time, to improve the land development pattern within the urban area of the city to be more energy conservation-oriented. As an incorporated city, La Pine will be required to undertake recycling of solid waste in concert with solid waste haulers. 3.13.3 Conclusion and Finding Incorporation will likely have little or no short term affect on the consumption/conservation of energy, other than gasoline consumption caused by long distance driving to Bend. Incorporation will enhance job growth and establishment of local services, reducing the need to drive elsewhere for these services. The City will be required to undertake recycling of solid waste. The City can comply with Goal 13. 3.14 Goal 14: Urbanization 3.14.1 Summary of Goal 14 Urbanization This goal requires all cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and then plan and zone enough land to meet those needs. It calls for each city to establish an "urban growth boundary " (UGB,) to "identify and separate urban and urbanizable land from rural land. "It specifies factors that must be considered in drawing up a UGB. It also lists criteria to be applied when undeveloped land within a UGB is to be converted to urban uses. 37 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBIC/7/26/2006 3.14.2 Effect of Proposed Incorporation The proposed incorporation has no immediate effect on Goal 14. However, Goal 14, along with Goal 2, is the most significant goal to be addressed in the future comprehensive plan, particularly to establish the UGB. Goal 2 and Goal 14 must be taken together. Therefore, all of the discussion included here under Goal 2 regarding exceptions and the hierarchy of land to be included in the UGB is relevant to this discussion of Goal 14. When the City establishes its UGB it will have to consider the Land Need factors of Goal 14. These are: 1. Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population, consistent with a 20 year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments; 2. Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space, or any combination of these need categories. The City will also have to consider the Boundary Location factors of Goal 14. These are: 1. Efficient accommodation of identified land needs; 2. Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; 3. Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and 4. Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB. Need for Urbanizable Land This factor 1 relates to urban population growth; a large proportion of the city's population will remain rural. The exact amount of land area that will be needed for housing and employment, as well as other urban uses, within La Pine's UGB is unknown at this time. Deschutes County is required by law to coordinate population and employment projections county-wide based on state and county control totals provided by the State Economist. In 2004 population projections to 2025 were updated and coordinated with the cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters (Ordinance # 2004-012 (9/8/04)) and the non-urban portion of the county. A total of 81,951 people are projected for the non-urban portion of the county in 2025. As part of its adoption of a UGB, the City of La Pine will be required to determine with specificity, the need for land for housing, commercial, industrial, park, open space and other needs. In February, 2000, the County prepared acreage calculations through its GIS for all of the area included within the proposed boundary. These calculations indicate 435 acres of industrial land, 197 acres of commercial land, and 117 acres of commercial/residential land. The new neighborhood plan allocates 7.5 acres of land for commercial and 79 acres for other 38 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHnJCJ7/2612006 non-residential uses (not including road right-of-way) that, if approved, will be for urban use regardless of incorporation. Therefore, approximately 749 acres may be available for urban development of non-residential uses. Location Factors Data provided here indicate that it is reasonably feasible to assume that urban land needs for the City of La Pine can be accommodated for the short term within the existing UCC. Based on these assumptions, and the likelihood that other lands may not be included within the UGB at the time the comprehensive plan is adopted, the following discusses how this boundary would comply with the location factors of Goal 14. Public Facilities As discussed previously, municipal sewer and water is provided to the properties within the proposed boundary. Fire protection will continue to be provided by the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District and regional parks and recreation, by the La Pine Park and Recreation District. Urban transportation facilities will be required within the UGB. To a great extent, the provision of these facilities and services to an urban level will occur with or without incorporation. Incorporation will permit improved planning and coordination within the urban area, partly through the consolidation of sewer and water utilities. As it stands today, the County is the entity that must coordinate public facility planning for this area. ESEE Consequences This factor relates back to a number of the statewide planning goals in establishing the UGB. Its purpose is to ensure that economic, social, environmental and energy consequences have been considered in establishing the UGB. The analysis is similar to, but less detailed than, a federal environmental impact analysis in that it provides a disclosure of the possible impacts. The La Pine UUC is already designated as an urban unincorporated community area under the Unincorporated Communities Rule (UCR) and provisions of Goal 14 and Goal 2, Exceptions, its transition to a UGB should be relatively easy to accomplish because many of the consequences have already been considered or have occurred through past development activity. As discussed under Goal 9, the economic consequences of incorporation are expected to be positive. The lack of jobs, and the difficulty of attracting employers, is a major concern that has been addressed by LPAC in the strategic planning process. Incorporation will provide local leadership to help attract business growth and address problems and issues that deter business and professional/managerial people from locating in the area. The social consequences of incorporation are intricately related to the economic consequences. An improved economy will provide more local jobs, thereby reducing commuting and allow more people to work as well as live in the community. This promotes more social investment through participation in community organizations and activities such as the Chamber of Commerce, school organizations, city boards and commissions, youth activities and the like. 39 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From Comry and EHTB]C/7/26/2006 Greater social investment can improve activities and raises the self-esteem for youth and adults deterring crime and delinquency. 10 The energy consequences are the most difficult to identify. An increase in energy usage will occur in any regard due to growth, with or without incorporation. An improvement in jobs locally could decrease the amount of commuting to Bend, thereby decreasing vehicle gasoline consumption. Agricultural and Forest Land Compatibility As discussed under Section 3.3, the proposed urban uses would likely have no impact on farming or forest practices. The particular boundary configuration for La Pine could provide an opportunity to coordinate growth within the UGB in a manner compatible with the adjoining rural residential and resource lands outside the boundary.11 This coordination ("interface") is a strong theme within Goal 14 but has not been explored very creatively in acknowledged plans. This is because the tradition has been to separate urban from rural areas jurisdictionally while UGBs have been largely a city or joint city-county responsibility, most rural lands are the exclusive responsibility of counties, largely because most UGB's are completely outside city boundaries. The proposed city boundary could be a model to find more creative approaches to manage this interface for the benefit of both. 3.14.3 Conclusion and Finding It is reasonable to expect that the City can comply with Goal 14 to establish a UGB in compliance with the factors of the goal and based on the priority scheme of ORS 197.298. The proposed boundary already contains an acknowledged Urban Unincorporated Community and some additional exception lands. These areas are high priority areas for inclusion within the future UGB to accommodate future population growth without reliance on resource lands. At the same time, the inclusion of resource land within the city boundary will enable a coordination of land management strategies that can be a benefit to the urban-rural interface, and provide needed open space, parks, and future industrial and public facilities. 4. County Comprehensive Plan 4.1 Applicability The most current version of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan was adopted and codified in 2005. There have been several amendments made since 1993 including adoption of the TSP and exceptions to form the La Pine, Neighborhood and Wickiup Junction Planning Areas. The incorporation proposal must address the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Statewide Planning Goals. At the same time, it is recognized that the City will be required to 10 The concept of community policing utilized in many U.S. cities today is based on the concept of community involvement and pride as a deterrent to crime. I I Factor 4 of Goal 14 talks about establishing a UGB that considers "the maximum efficiency of lands within and on the fringe of the existing urban area." The concept of taking a "holistic" approach to planning urban and rural lands together for the benefit of both is also a theme that came out of La Pine's April, 2000 vision process. 40 49482-3564473819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJCr7/2612006 prepare its own comprehensive plan in compliance with the statewide planning goals and this may necessitate revision or superceding of some portions of the County's Plan. These findings address how the County's Plan supports, or otherwise does not conflict with, the concept of incorporation and whether future adoption of a city comprehensive plan would represent a significant departure from the direction established in the County's Plan, which has been adopted and acknowledged in compliance with statewide planning goals. 4.2 Analysis of Proposed Incorporation The discussion of the County Comprehensive Plan will be by major topic area as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Only relevant portions will be cited. 12 4.2.1 Existing Conditions and Concerns The proposed incorporation does not have a direct effect on population growth and projections. Development that has already been approved by the County, or may be approved in the future, such as the Neighborhood Planning Area, will affect the amount and distribution of population in the county. Some may argue that incorporation will encourage population growth in this part of the county. La Pine's growth, without incorporation, has been (according to the Deschutes County Community Development Department) as high as 15% in recent years, primarily due to the number of platted lots that were approved prior to adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Lack of public facilities and environmental standards will continue to limit the ultimate amount of growth and development that can take place. In addition, as discussed previously, Deschutes County is the fastest growing county in Oregon and is running out of land for future development. This factor will eventually affect all areas of the county. Conclusion and Finding. Incorporation will not affect population growth. A coordinated population projection for the City of La Pine will have to be prepared when it develops its comprehensive plan. 4.2.2 Alternatives This section of the Plan discusses the broad alternatives (concepts for growth and development) that were considered in developing the Comprehensive Plan. The preferred (adopted) alternative is a combination of current trends at the time the plan was developed and "growth control." Under the preferred alternative, major growth is to occur in urban areas and rural development is to be restricted to rural service centers and on existing rural lots. Sprawl development is to be avoided. 12 For example, Housing and Citizen Involvement are part of the county's plan but they are very general in nature and there are no portions of those chapters that have specific relevance to La Pine. 41 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC 7/26/2006 Conclusion and Finding. The proposed incorporation and intent for land use is in keeping with the preferred alternative. Rural residential development is within those areas defined as "existing rural lots" which were extensive prior to adoption of the statewide planning goals Growth Management: Rural Development This section specifies that rural areas are the focus of the County's Comprehensive Plan. It predicted that La Pine would be incorporated by 2000 and have a population of 3,620; the plan did not identify the area predicted for incorporation. It provided information on how many platted lots existed in 1979 and how many would be needed by 2000. It recognized that the pattern of rural development that was created by parcelization is costly to serve, wasteful of energy, land and resources, less aesthetic and destructive of rural character. It identified South Deschutes County as an area that was once intended to be for recreational subdivisions but has filled up with retirees and younger people "seeking less expensive building lots." It stated that the area would have to be subsidized by the rest of the county because the area was not planned nor intended for this type of growth. It also identified that incompatible land uses have developed in rural service centers. Plan Policies relate to future rural residential development and encouragement of cluster or planned development such as the neighborhood area; destination resorts; commercial and industrial uses within rural areas, particularly those that are more appropriate in rural rather than urban areas; designation of particular rural service centers, including Wickiup Junction, 13 with compact commercial centers; and recognition of pre-existing approval of rural residential subdivision plats that do not meet new standards. Incorporation would not by itself change any rural lands to urban lands. Rural lands will be required to be examined during the preparation of the City's comprehensive plan. Conclusion and Finding. The proposed incorporation is in compliance with Chapter 23.40.010 of the County's Comprehensive Plan. While the County did not anticipate that the incorporation proposal would go beyond La Pine UUC the plan does not speak to this circumstance or have language that expressly prohibits such a proposal. 4.2.3 Urbanization This section, in response to Goal 14, relates only to the three UGB's in Bend, Redmond and Sisters, and then only to areas that are outside the city limits of each city with the understanding that each city would prepare its own plan. The La Pine, Neighborhood and Wickiup Junction Planning Areas are included in the Unincorporated Communities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion and Finding. County policies apply only to areas within UGBs that are outside city limits. It is not expected that this chapter will have any relevance to La Pine because the UGB will be wholly contained within the city limits and be the responsibility of the city. 13 La Pine was also designated as a rural service center but was redesignated as an urban unincorporated community in 1996. 42 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTB3C/7/26/2006 4.2.4 Economy This section, which addresses Goal 9, discusses the importance of the local economy including trends and projections. 14 There is no discussion of La Pine's role in the county's economy. Goals and policies are very general in nature to encourage tourism, natural resource use, and land use planning and development of industrial and commercial lands. Conclusion and Finding. The incorporation proposal is consistent with the County's economic goals and policies to generally improve the economy of the county. 4.2.5 Public Facilities The chapter of the plan discusses utilities, law enforcement, schools, fire, health and solid waste in response to Goal 11. It has one goal aimed at planning and developing a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development, including coordination of locations and service deliveries. There are 38 policies. The most relevant policies are: Policy 1 provides that public facilities and services should be provided at appropriate levels and in areas appropriate to resource carrying capacity and to serve as distinctions between rural and urban areas. Policy 2 distinguishes those types of service appropriate to serve rural and urban areas. The intent of proponents is to make clear distinctions between rural and urban areas and what services and service levels are intended to be provided in each area, in compliance with policies 1 and 2. This distinction is made in both the incorporation proposal itself and will be further defined in the development of the City's comprehensive plan. Policy 3 relates to future development and its dependence on the availability of services. Urban development would be required to locate where services are available, in compliance with Policy 3. Policy 5 encourages the formation of special service districts to provide rural services in preference to the county. Policy 5 would meet the statement's overall intent to decrease the need for the county to provide an urban service. Policy 6 concerns coordination of service providers and urban services with cities. Incorporation does not preclude the application of Policy 6 to the new city, and this would be expected as required by ORS 195 concerning coordination and urban service agreements. Work 14 For example, it is projected that lumber and wood products will continue to be the major economic force in the county, which is no longer true. 43 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTB3C/7/26/2006 was initiated by LCAT with the drafting of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with each service provider in 2000. Policy 7 considers funding to provide services for future development. The incorporation proposal is one way to address funding for current and future development by providing a permanent tax rate and other sources of revenue that would not otherwise be available. Utility Policy 17 concerns annexation and the availability of services such as water. Policy 17 concerns annexation, but it could be argued, could also apply to incorporation. The incorporation proposal complies with Policy 17 in that it considers the availability of public services in the service package proposed and Goal 11 requirements. Policies 33 and 34 concern health care and the role of the County to encourage facilities for low income and disadvantaged persons. The incorporation proposal could enhance Policies 33 and 34 because LCAT has evidence that incorporation could encourage the location of more health care providers, including a hospital, in La Pine. The lack of health services has been identified in the Strategic Plan as a major community problem. Conclusion and Finding. The proposal substantially complies with the County's chapter on public facilities because it will facilitate the provision of public facilities and services to urban and rural areas in a manner that the plan provides. 4.2.6 Recreation This chapter discusses the need for park and recreation facilities and programs for the entire county, with emphasis on urban and urbanizing areas in response to Goal 8. It also discusses the strong presence of the federal and state governments in the county and the need to improve planning and coordination of services. Standards are provided for 10 acres of park land per 1,000 population (Policy 8). Policy 15 encourages unincorporated communities to assess recreational needs and work with public agencies and organizations to acquire land. The incorporation proposal will enhance implementation of the County's goals and policies for recreation. The proposal includes funding to help develop some local recreation facilities, and overall, should help the La Pine Park and Recreation District establish park and recreation facilities in the area. LCAT has been designated by the BLM to provide citizen involvement to help plan for uses of certain BLM land within the La Pine area. Incorporation will assist with implementation of those ideas. Conclusion and Finding. The incorporation proposal complies with the County's recreation goals and policies. 44 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/7/262006 4.2.7 Energy The Energy chapter, in response to Goal 13, discusses existing and potential energy sources, including energy conservation. Policies cover general issues, alternative energy sources (e.g., geothermal), recycling and conservation. Policies 9 and 10 encourage recycling county-wide through county programs. As discussed under Goal 13 Energy, the incorporation proposal has no real effect on energy use or conservation. By virtue of the incorporation, however, the City will be required to provide recycling, which will assist in implementation of the County's recycling policies. Conclusion and Finding. The incorporation proposal complies with the County's energy goals and policies. 4.2.8 Natural Hazards In response to Goal 7, the plan identifies wildfire as the only significant natural hazard in the county. Plan policies relate to flooding, drought and fire. Many of the flooding policies form the base for the County's flood plain regulations. The incorporation proposal does not affect the County's or La Pine area's vulnerability to natural hazards. The largest element of risk is posed by development that has already been permitted in the La Pine area. The County's RPS project has been aimed at reducing this risk, especially at reducing the risk associated with wildfire. There is every reason to believe that residents of the City will desire to continue the programs and policies to reduce risk from flooding and wildfire through adoption of Comprehensive Plan provisions and regulations. In addition, proponents assume that the City will remain part of the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District to ensure adequate response to fire management in concert with the U. S. Forest Service and the BLM. Conclusion and Finding. The incorporation proposal complies with the County's goals and policies concerning natural hazards. 4.2.9 Agricultural Lands This chapter, amended in 1995 in response to changes in state legislation and revisions to OAR 660-03 (Goal 3), discusses the County's agricultural activities and products and the nature of agricultural land. It indicates that non-irrigated farm land is usually SCS Capability Class IV and lower. Specifically for La Pine, it was found that most farm land is associated with the sub-irrigated pasture of the riparian meadow along the Little Deschutes River. As such it depends to a much greater degree than in the other subzones on livestock grazing on non-irrigated pasture. Irrigated or potentially irrigable farmland is of a higher class and is afforded greater protections in county regulations. Plan policies relate to the classification of agricultural land and rules for parcel sizes and land division. There are no policies that relate to inclusion of lands within UGBs or cities, but that would not be expected. The City would be required to develop similar policies and regulations to those of the County to protect agricultural land. One reasonable option would be to adopt the County's current policies and regulations. 45 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBIC/7/26/2006 Conclusion and Finding. The proposed incorporation is not inconsistent with the County's agricultural land policies. The City will be required to develop policies and regulations to protect agricultural land. 4.2.10 Forest Lands This chapter, addressing Goal 4, of the Comprehensive Plan was amended in 1994 to comply with changes in state law. It identifies that the greatest forest resource lies with the Deschutes National Forest. The incorporation proposal does not contain any land owned by the Deschutes National Forest. Forest lands included in the proposed boundary are either BLM-owned or privately owned. Nonetheless, proponents intend to protect forest land as this relates to the rural character and community identity that residents value. Plan policy provisions and regulations will be required to be adopted to provide this protection. Conclusion and Finding. The incorporation proposal complies with the County's goals and policies for forest land. 4.2.11 Open Space, Areas of Special Concern, and Environmental Quality This chapter was substantially amended in 1994 to comply with the Goal 5 rule, including an inventory update of natural and historic resources and Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) consequences analyses. The analyses identified conflicting uses and determined how to accommodate them. The Comprehensive Plan identifies natural resources for protection: • The Little Deschutes River (floodplain, wetland and riparian resources) corridor • -Highway 97, Huntington Road and Burgess Road Scenic Roadway Corridors • Deer Migration Corridor (entire boundary outside the Planning Areas) • Wetlands not along Little Deschutes Other than the roadway corridors, no Goal 5 resources are identified for the Planning Areas. is The Landscape Management Combining Zone protects the scenic and open space values of the Little Deschutes and other waterways and to designated roadways with scenic values. It adds requirements to the base zone (ex. MUA, EFU, RR-10) in which a lot or parcel is located to protect and enhance scenic vistas as seen from designated roads and rivers. For example, it provides a 100-foot setback for structures and septic systems, fill and removal regulations, provisions for conservation easements and prohibition of hydro-electric facilities on certain Is There is one Goal 5 historic structure identified within the proposed boundary of La Pine Commercial Club. 46 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From Cotay and EHTBJC/7/26/2006 reaches of the Deschutes River and its tributaries. The community's intent is in accord with these values as demonstrated in its recent visioning project. Most of the area proposed for inclusion within the city boundary is outside the Deer Migration Combining Zone. This zone carries limitations on uses and standards for siting of uses and fencing. Within the rural residential area (RR-10), it requires that future land divisions be at least 20 acres in size and occur in a "cluster" pattern with at least 80% of the area retained in open space. In as much as most of the rural residential area has already been platted to the minimum lot size or less, this standard has little effect. The County also has a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat overlay zone to protect inventoried species and sites. However, no sensitive birds or mammals have been identified within the incorporation boundaries. Other plan policies and ordinances protect fish and wildlife in the Deschutes River Corridor. These designations and regulations will stay in effect until the City adopts its own regulations; a reasonable option for the City to consider is to adopt those of the County to reduce time and effort. As discussed throughout this document, most of the urban development is expected to be confined to the current La Pine UUC and, therefore, there will be little impact to the Little Deschutes River and deer migration area. There could be a potential conflict with the Highway 97 scenic corridor setback standard of 100' and potential interests to develop portions of the La Pine and Wickiup Junction Planning areas as compact urban centers that promote pedestrian use. Broad setbacks from roadways are normally discouraged because they inhibit pedestrian use and encourage auto use for short local trips. Highway 97 through the La Pine Planning Area has been identified in transportation studies as a hazard area for pedestrians and autos. The RPS project is designed to mitigate the impacts of development in south Deschutes County on wildlife and water resources, amongst other concerns. The proposed incorporation could facilitate a greater level of success by providing a local government and city services for the new neighborhood. The incorporation expands the level of resources to address local environmental issues overall. Conclusion and Finding. The proposed incorporation does not conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan for Open Space, Areas of Special Concern, and Environmental Quality. Upon incorporation, the County's plan and implementing regulations will continue to regulate these resources until the City completes its comprehensive plan. The most efficient response could be to adopt relevant portions of the County's plan and overlay regulations. 4.2.12 Conclusion and Finding The proposed incorporation either complies with relevant chapters and sections of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan or is at least not inconsistent. Work done on Goal 5 by Deschutes County represents a significant amount of work and something that would be best not duplicated if at all possible. The City of La Pine could choose to incorporate all the relevant portions of this work into its own comprehensive plan. 47 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTB)C/7/26/2006 5. Overall Conclusion and Finding Based on the foregoing, it appears that, after a successful incorporation election, it is reasonably likely that the newly incorporated city can and will be able to comply with the state land use goals, once the city assumes primary responsibility for comprehensive planning within the city boundary. 48 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC7/26/2006 The preceding Burden of Proof Document is based on the evidence and findings set forth in the following documents which are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein: Economic Feasibility Statement dated June 19, 2006; La Pine Strategic Plan by La Pine Community Action Team (both 1996 and 2000); BLM Upper Deschutes Management Plan - Bureau of Land Management Prineville; Engineering studies for sewer and water including environmental assessments - HGE; La Pine Housing Study - La Pine Community Action Team; La Pine Strategic Plan - La Pine Community Action Team; Feasibility Study for the Proposed La Pine Airport (Bird Field) by Coffrnan Associates, Inc., dated March 2002; La Pine Mainstreet Plan; La Pine Park District Strategic Plan; La Pine Distressed Community Report; Deschutes County staff reports regarding the Regional Problem Solving process; La Pine Governance Incorporation Studies; University of Oregon Southern Deschutes and Northern Klamath Population and Income Study; Survey of Oregon Unincorporated Communities, Department of Land Conservation and Development, January 30, 1997; Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan; Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance; LCAT door-to-door survey of August-September of 1999; Davis & Hibbitts survey of November, 1999; Community Visioning Process (Charette) April 28-29, 2000; Oregon Department Of Transportation Highway 97 Corridor Study; LaPine and Wickiup Local Street, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan prepared by TriLand Design Group, Inc., Tigard, OR 1998-1999; 49 49482-35644 73819.4 CLEAN Merged Revisions From County and EHTBJC/7/26/2006 k K Economic Feasibility Statement City of La Pine Deschutes County, Oregon July 28, 2006 INTRODUCTION A new city, to be known as the City of La Pine, in Deschutes County ("City") is proposed to be formed for the purpose of providing municipal services to the residents of the proposed City. The City is proposed to allow cost effective provision of urban services at the minimum level required to meet the needs of current residents, and projected population growth. The City will be located in south central Deschutes County, providing services to approximately 1,700 - 2,000 residents and covering 4.5 square miles. The City will be established under the procedures of Oregon Revised Statutes chapter 221, with boundaries as shown on the attached map and legal description. The City will include portions of the existing special districts of the La Pine Water District, La Pine Special Sewer District and La Pine Rural Fire Protection District. Deschutes County is experiencing the fastest county growth in the State of Oregon and is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released in March 2006. The County also has one of the fastest median household income growth rates in the state, according to the same census report. Demands for housing and urban services will continue to increase in the La Pine area. Development within the proposed boundaries of the City is proposed to include approximately 850 new residences to be constructed within the next few years. The incorporation of La Pine is responsive to area growth and development. PROPOSED MUNICIPAL ACTIVITIES The need for municipal services in the La Pine area has increased in recent years. The County and special districts currently serve the area, but have not been able to respond to increasing local demands for the variety of services needed. There has not been adequate funding for road maintenance, nor for planning services. Not-for-profit organizations have been successful in addressing some of the issues, but the community needs an increased level of service. The incorporation of the City of La Pine is proposed in order to develop and maintain a municipality that is safe, attractive, has up-to-date facilities and can provide local control over government services. The proposed City will provide much needed services such as (1) road paving and maintenance; (2) planning and zoning; (3) providing water service; (4) providing sewer service as well as providing the ability to respond to future residents' needs as the population in the area grows. Once incorporated, the City is expected to eventually grow to be approximately the same size as Sisters, Oregon, also in Deschutes County. Factors that stimulate the demand for additional facilities and services are residential development, area population growth and increases in assessed property value. The Deschutes County Assessor has assessed the collective properties within the proposed City boundaries at seventy-six million dollars. After additional building and development, that collective value will increase. Page 3 - ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STATEMENT 49482-35644 74295 REVISED EFS-FINAL Ibjc1712711006 System development charges ("SDCs") require developers of new development to pay a fair share of the cost to construct capital improvements to provide five types of services: streets and transportation, water service, sewer service, storm water drainage and treatment, and parks/recreation. SDCs may be imposed to cover the cost of constructing facilities to provide each of the described services. SDCs may be charged either to pay the value of facilities that have already been constructed and paid for by taxpayers, or to pay for future facilities if additional facilities are required, as the case may be. In this way, new development pays its share of the costs imposed on the City by the development. In other cities, SDCs for all five services can total as much as $20,000 or more per residential unit with similar amounts for commercial and industrial developments. The amount of each SDC must be fixed as required by law, after a determination of the cost (or value) of facilities to provide city services. The amount of SDCs charged must be proportionate to the amount of each service that arises from each development. The SDC is paid at the time a building permit is issued. Revenue from SDCs will vary, depending on the number of permits issued each year. SDCs may be spent for capital improvements, but not for operations. Because the initial stated property tax rate represents a permanent maximum rate, and the City will be unable to make future increases to the rate, a rate of $1.98 per $1,000 is proposed as the maximum rate. The $1.98 rate is a maximum. Under the Oregon Local Budget Law, the City Council must determine the actual rate of taxation each year, and may not exceed the maximum. While the City will have authority to collect this property tax, it may not need to actually assess more than a portion of the proposed rate. The election to form the City will include approval of a permanent tax rate of $1.98 per $1,000 of assessed property value. The proposed rate of $1.98 will not create compression under Measure 5. It is projected that property tax revenue will become one of the primary sources of revenue for the City. If additional funds are needed, funding sources that are available to other cities may also be available to the incorporated City of La Pine. Many major banks and the Oregon Economic Development assist cities and special districts with loans to finance large projects. Such loans can be repaid from a variety of sources, including fees, local option levies, and taxes on other than property taxes. The Oregon Department of Transportation facilitates transportation projects and coordinates them with state and federally funded projects. The League of Oregon Cities has membership comprised of over 200 Oregon cities of a wide range of population and geographic sizes and should prove to be a helpful and reliable information resource for other sources of funding. Page 5 - ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STATEMENT 49482-35644 74295 REVISED EFS-FINAL 1bjd7/27/2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Telecommunications 0 0 0 City Judge (contract) 5,000 10,000 10,000 Contingencies 80,000 126,390 196,930 Total Expenditures 2,291,855 2,562,640 2,712,330 Carryover to next budget 0 0 0 GENERAL FUND: The General Fund is the main fund for the receipt of funds and the expenditure of non-capital dollars. The following describes the anticipated resources and proposed expenditures for the first three fiscal years. A. GENERAL FUND RESOURCES: 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 1. Property Taxes 60,000 132,300 158,980 2. Previous Year Taxes 0 8,400 10,350 3. System Development Charge 0 23,500 37,600 4. Bldg Permit/Inspections 92,000 103,340 126,200 5. Franchise Fees 153,900 167,500 187,500 6. Other Income 77,300(l) 67,600 74,600 7. Carryover 0 0 0 (1) incl. $33,800 in Tax Antn. Note TOTAL 383,200 532,640 595,230 EXPLANATION OF RESOURCES BY FUND ITEM NUMBER: 1. Property taxes are based on several assumptions. These amounts are based on a rate of $1.76/thousand, a district assessed value of $76,000,000 in FY 2004-05, annual growth of 7.6% and a non-payment rate of 6%. 2. Previous year tax collections are expected in the second year and thereafter. 3. The City will be empowered to collect a System Development Charge ("SDC") after completing a study. Revenues from SDCs not expected until the second year. 4. Housing is increasing at a dramatic rate. A conservative estimate of 45 new homes with a $220,000 value, is likely low. The new housing development, which is within the proposed city limits, built and sold 46 homes in the past year. Phase II of that development is in progress. In addition, four other housing developments are experiencing rapid growth, and the La Pine Industrial Park has sold all of the lots in Phase 1 which are ready for commercial construction. 5. Franchise fees are based on similar fees budgeted for like-population cities of Sisters, OR. and John Day, OR. Page 7 - ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STATEMENT 49481-35644 74295 REVISED EFS-FINAL 1bjc17/27/2006 EXPLANATION OF GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY FUND ITEM NUMBER: 1. An Administrator/City Planner may be hired midway through the first Fiscal Year at an initial salary of $36,000 per year. In year one, the city would prefer a 32- hour week employee until workload would require increase to full time. The budget reflects years two and three at a higher level for revision of the position to full time if warranted. 2. The budget is drawn to provide two half-time clerical personnel, which works well in the La Pine area for families with small children, or high quality retirees who desire only part time. This staff may be hired midway through the second year at a salary of approximately $15,200 divided by two employees. 3,4,5 Payroll expense is estimated at 30% of payroll, but increased in years two and three to allow for addition of a health insurance option. Workers Compensation Insurance premiums increase as staff is hired. 7. Building permits shall be outsourced, likely to Deschutes County, and the expense is calculated as 75% of the fees to be collected. 7. Professional services include legal, accounting and administrative support. . 6. Insurance premiums are expected to increase naturally as the City grows and adds more services/employees. Additionally, we may be able to provide health insurance as the budget income increases. 7. Utilities and rent are not broken out, as we plan to utilize the existing La Pine Water/La Pine Sewer District offices and add our staff. Those expenses are included in the water and sewer budgets which are shown as line items in our proposed budget. 8. City office supplies will be added to the existing Water/Sewer supplies, but are not expected to be very high as staffing the first year will not be full time 9. Road maintenance shall be expended as the gas tax funds permit. Road grading, snow clearing, etc. will likely be hired through local providers. 10. Tourism will equal transient room tax collections and will likely be outsourced to the La Pine Chamber of CommerceNisitors Center. 11. Costs related to Travel, Training and Memberships will grow as staff increases. 12. Telecommunications, including phone and internet connections, are in Water/Sewer budgets. 13. The full Water budget, income and expenses, are incorporated in the City budget. 14. The full Sewer budget, income and expenses, are incorporated in the City budget. 15. Election expense of $13,000 is included to cover the cost of the Nov. 2006 election. 16. TAN is first year borrowing, no repayment is anticipated, the full principal repayment is budgeted in the second year. 17. Interest accrual at 7% on TAN 18. A nominal rent is included as the building intended to house city services is owned by the Water & Sewer District and it is unknown if ownership will be transferred to the city. 19. No capital outlay is currently anticipated 20. Budget is prepared with any anticipated excess added to contingency rather than specified as capital reserve. 21. Contingency costs are all funds not otherwise allocated in the budget, outside the existing sewer and water budgets. Page 9 - ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STATEMENT 49482-35644 74295 REVISED EFS-FINAL Ibjc1712711006 c 2. Funds are not shown as transferred from the General Fund for future operating or capital expenses. The first year will have low operating expenses and no capital expenses. General revenues can be diverted into the Capital Reserve Fund the first year out of contingency fund if not otherwise utilized. EXPENDITURES: Remaining funds not utilized as a contingency can be reserved for future operating and/or capital expenses should the need arise. 2. System Development Charges not expended in the year of collection will be credited to the Capital Improvement Fund. Page 11 - ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STATEMENT 49482-35644 74295 REVISED EFS-FINAL 1Ljc1712 7/1 0 0 6 EXHIBIT 1 Incorporation Questions for Consideration by the Board of County Commissioners The following questions address some issues that are not clear in the Findings and Economic Feasibility Statement. The Board of County Commissioners would like some clarity on these issues before or at the hearing on August 7, 2006. ProDosed Boundarv Questions 1. Why are some properties split, with part of the parcels inside the boundary and part outside the boundary? Background: The proposed boundary includes a number of areas where properties are divided. This issue is not addressed in the Findings and it is unclear why these choices were made or what the impacts will be of this division. 2. Why is one parcel from the UUC placed outside of the proposed city boundary? Background: There is one parcel in the Urban Unincorporated Community (UUC) that is outside of the proposed boundary. Given that the Findings discuss using the UUC as the basis for the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), it is not clear why this parcel got excluded from the proposed city. This issue is not discussed in the Findings. 3. How is the cemetery property benefitted by its inclusion in the City? Background: The only mention of the cemetery in the findings is in the chart on page 13. No discussion is included as to why that property would be benefitted by being included in the City boundaries and nothing has been included in the Economic Feasibility Statement regarding the cost of maintenance or improvement. Financial Feasibility Questions 4. Where do the Findings or Economic Feasibility Study show increased service levels? Background: The only benefit to future residents that is easy to quantify is improved service delivery. The Findings state (pg 13) that "...the City will initially provide services at levels at or above those currently provided by Deschutes County or special districts that will be extinguished by the incorporation." How this will be accomplished is not clear from the Findings and Economic Feasibility. Some examples are listed below. ■ Sewer and water: There is no proposed change to existing system delivery. ■ Fire: There is no proposed change to existing system delivery, with no withdrawal from the Fire District and no establishment of a City fire department. ■ Public roads: The city will take over 10 miles of public roads. There is a budget item for road maintenance but there is no detail showing which roads will be included, how those dollars will be spent or who will manage the work. ■ County roads: The Findings indicate that the County will continue to maintain the approximately 20 miles of County roads in the proposed boundary. The basis for this assumption is not clear. t ■ Recreation: The Findings (pg 29) state that the tax rate includes funding for enhanced recreation, but this is not shown in the budget. • Planning: This is not shown in the budget. 5. On what basis was the staffing determined? Background: The budget starts with fiscal year 2007-2008. That means that for the first six months there will be no budget and no staff. When staff are added, one 32 hours per week Administrator/Planner will be working with two part time clerical assistants. The Administrator/Planner will be responsible for running all aspects of city government for the first three years. Sisters, a city of similar size, has 16 staff members. It is possible that the proposed Findings and Economic Feasibility Study underestimate the complexity of running a city. 6. How will the proposed city fund law enforcement? Look at both the scenario where the two proposed sheriff taxing districts are formed, and where the proposed District 2 for rural patrol is not approved by the voters. Background: The Findings note that the proposed city has a number of choices depending on whether or not the levy passes. There is an assumption that the sheriff will automatically provide services if the city incorporates. This assumption needs to be verified. Additionally, some discussion should be included as to what extent the City is likely to provide law enforcement services. For example, is the City expecting some sort of law enforcement for City laws? Also note, the Sheriff measures on the ballot are not for a Sheriffs levy. The measures are for the formation of two taxing districts and the establishment of corresponding permanent tax rates. The actual tax levies will occur later and will likely start at a lower rate than the fully authorized rate. 7. How does the city intend to provide and fund land use services? Is there a basis for the assumption that the County is willing to contract out land use services for the first year? Background: Land use, including permitting and long range planning, is not listed in the proposed budget. The County currently processes land use applications and grants permits for land uses as sign permits, subdivisions and site plans in addition to doing long range planning for transportation and administration of the comprehensive plan. The Findings state (pg 22) that land use will be contracted out to the County for the first year, but that item is not in budget. Although the County is willing to discuss a contract, it should not be assumed to be a given due to the sensitive nature of many land use decisions. The Findings also state that a planning division will be started and a comprehensive plan initiated in the second year, but that item is not in the budget. The Findings note a $20,000 grant will be provided in the third year to help with the comprehensive plan, but it is not in the budget and that amount is not going to be adequate to write the required comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances. Additionally, will the City Council be the hearings body for appeals? Would the City contract for its own Hearing Officer? 2 8. Is there a basis for the assumption that the County is willing to turn La Pine Industrial Park over to the new city? Background: The Findings (pg 30) assume La Pine Industrial Park will be turned over to the city. While this has been discussed in past incorporation attempts, it has not been discussed with the County during current incorporation discussions. 9. How would the proposed city work with the County regarding the existing County System Development Charges (SDCs)? Background: The County recently initiated System Development Charges (SDCs) in South County to fund four stoplights in the proposed boundary. It is not clear how these funds would be handled after incorporation. Thus, it is not clear whether the City is likely to contribute toward those stoplights. Given that the County's SDCs will no longer apply within the City limits, if the City does not contribute toward those stoplights, those projects will not be funded. 10. How will the new city treat the existing sewer district liability to repay the County for the loan to expand the sewer system capacity? Background: The County recently took out a loan for approximately $1 million to fund sewer improvements. If the proposed city takes over the sewer system, it needs to be clear that this debt would be part of the package. Per agreement with the sewer district, the loan was to be repaid through sewer SDCs collected in the Neighborhood Planning Area (Newberry Neighborhood). This is not currently listed in the budget. 11. How does the budget account for funds that are restricted in the way they can be spent, such as building permit fees or room taxes? Background: Many municipal fees must be maintained separately and are only permitted to be spent on specified items. The Economic Feasibility Study lists SDCs, building permit outsource fees and tourism promotion as part of the General Fund expenditures. Those fees, SDCs and building permit fees, in total, and room taxes, for the most part, are not general funds and are to be dedicated funds. There are other additional fees that must be set aside in dedicated funds, yet the Economic Feasibility Statement does not account for those restrictions. 12. What services would the City require if the Building Program is contracted to the County? Background: The Economic Feasibility Statement specifies 75% of building program revenue would be used to pay for a contract with the County. Would permit intake, issuance, tracking and record keeping be included? Where would customers go to receive this service? 13. Is it understood that to obtain franchise fees and room taxes, that first a local ordinance must be passed? Background: The budget includes income from franchise fees and room taxes. The proposed city would need to create ordinances before those fees could be collected. It is not clear that the staff would be available to create those ordinances. 3 I 11 14. What is the source for the room tax income number? Background: $100,000 is listed as income from room taxes. That number seems high and it would help to know how that number was determined. 15. Why is the City not planning to provide water to Wickiup Junction? Background: The Summary of Services chart that begins on page 13 of the Findings document shows on page 14 that municipal water would not be provided to the Wickiup Junction Planning Area. Page 33 of the Findings says that Wickiup Junction is served by a private water company. The La Pine Water District installed in the New Neighborhood along Highway 97 the pipe for serving Wickiup Junction. 16. How will solid waste disposal be provided? Background: Once incorporated, it is uncertain whether the County's solid waste ordinances will apply within the City limits. Thus, it is uncertain whether the County solid waste hauler franchises will apply. Thus, a discussion of how the City intends to handle solid waste management would be in order. Land Use Questions 17. How does the proposed city plan on working with the County to ensure continued implementation of the Regional Problem Solving Chapter of the County Comprehensive Plan? Background: The proposed city would need to coordinate with the County policies in the Regional Problem Solving chapter of the County Comprehensive Plan. This chapter was not mentioned at all in the Findings discussing the County Comprehensive Plan. 4