2009-4-Minutes for Meeting August 02,2006 Recorded 1/2/2009DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS rJ T
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 11 0494
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
111111111 111 01/02/2409 08;17;04 AM
I~111111111 ■ 1
2000-4
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book
or as Fee Number
and Page
C] Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF SPECIAL WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2006
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Bev Clarno and Michael M. Daly.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Tom Blust, and George
Kolb, Road Department; Laurie Craghead and Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel;
media representatives Barney Lerten of News Channel 21, Jeff Mullin of KBND
Radio, and Chris Stollar of The Bulletin; and several other citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:15 a. m.
Catherine Morrow presented a copy of questions regarding incorporation.
Laurie Craghead thanked Jerry Houser and Greg Bates, who put together the legal
description. The Department of Revenue was very cooperative in helping deal
with the short time frame allowed for filing. (She referred to an oversized map of
the area)
In regard to properties at the north boundary of the city on the west side, north of
Cagle Road, she said that some parcels are split by roads or the flood plain.
Therefore, just part of the parcels will be annexed. There is another parcel that is
subject to an exchange.
Ms. Morrow stated that there are three categories to be considered: boundaries,
financial feasibility and land use questions. The budget requires additional
information and more detail is needed on how to determine the staffing level, how
police services will be provided, and so on.
Work Session regarding Upcoming La Pine Incorporation Hearing Page 1 of 3 Pages
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
Commissioner Luke asked that since this is a land use action, can it be appealed.
Ms. Craghead replied that the Board action could be appealed at LUBA, but the
election would go forward. These questions are being asked to strengthen the
findings.
Ms. Morrow said that the city limits would be about seven square acres.
IN regard to question #6, there is no line item for planning services. They are
trying to get a grant from DLCD.
Regarding #8, SDC's for signals and traffic items, Commissioner Luke stated that
they can contract with the County to handle these. The benefits extend beyond the
borders of the city.
Also discussed were room tax fees, which must be spent to promote tourism.
Commissioner Luke asked if a charter would be drawn. Ms. Craghead replied that
this seems to be the intent, but they can do it later.
In regard to # 14, water service has been expanded to include Wickiup Junction.
Tom Blust said that concerning the road network, there is a total of 30 miles of
public roads, eight which are paved. He explained how tax dollars are distributed
to the cities. He said that the city would automatically be responsible for ten miles
of roads that aren't County roads; most of these are in the Wickiup Junction area.
At this time the property owners are maintaining them.
Commissioner Luke said that he doesn't not want to take testimony on whether La
Pine should incorporate, but will take questions if something needs to be clarified
prior to the August 7 meeting. Ms. Craghead said that the firm that drafted the
findings will be at the meeting. She said that all of the adjustments to the legal
description, findings and order must be done by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 7.
Commissioner Luke said some of the land within the city limits is not within the
UGB. Ms. Craghead stated that this can be addressed later. The Board can include
more land if it is a benefit; they must exclude anything that is not benefited.
Catherine Morrow added that the cemetery is private land surrounded by BLM
land, and it is being included.
Work Session regarding Upcoming La Pine Incorporation Hearing Page 2 of 3 Pages
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
DATED this 2"d Day of August 2006 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
E S R. LUKE, Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Work Session regarding Upcoming La Pine Incorporation Hearing Page 3 of 3 Pages
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
IL J,
BEV CLARNO, Commissioner
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.
Proposed 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 takeover 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.
■ 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/Plannerwill 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 F
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. 3
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
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