Loading...
2009-5-Minutes for Meeting August 07,2006 Recorded 1/2/2009DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2009.5 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01/02/2009 08;27;20 QM 111111111111111111111111 2009-s 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 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 La Pine - South County Services Building - 51340 Highway 97 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Bev Clarno. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Teresa Rozik and Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; Catherine Morrow and Tom Anderson, Community Development; media representatives Brittney Monroe from News Channel 21 and Chris Stollar of The Bulletin; and approximately 80 citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 9: 00 a. m. 1. Before the Board were Adjustments to the Agenda. See additions to the agenda. 2. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 3. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-125, Relinquishing a Reversionary Interest in Certain Real Property (Redmond). Teresa Rozik gave an overview of the item, which relates to a strip of land located next to the Humane Society of Redmond that needs to be relinquished for an adjacent property owner to be able to build. The funds generated by this action would be used for capital improvements to the Humane Society property. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 1 of 17 Pages VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-046, Declaring the Intent to Exchange Real Property (La Pine). Teresa Rozik explained the nature of the exchange, which will allow the County and a private property owner to exchange property that will benefit the County. She pointed out the properties on an oversized map. Catherine Morrow stated that the property owner, Mr. Young, worked with the Bureau of Land Management to consolidate his property, and he is also donating land to the County, the school district and Central Oregon Community College. This action sets the date for the hearing. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 5. Discussion and Consideration of Chair Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract Letter for Treatment Foster Care Services. Dave Kanner stated that there was only one bidder, MapleStar, on this item. An Order will come to the Board on Wednesday, allowing the County Administrator to sign the agreement on behalf of the County. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 2 of 17 Pages 6. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-404, an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon regarding Public Health Services. Mr. Kanner gave an overview of the item, which is an amendment to the contract with the State that is necessary due to changes to law. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was Discussion of Deliberations of the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment, and Consideration of First and Second Reading and Adoption, by Emergency, or Ordinance No. 2006-018 and Ordinance No. 2006-019. Mr. Kanner explained that this item will be delayed until August 23. Laurie Craghead said there are no legal deadlines for this item, but the City of Redmond would like action taken as quickly as possible. The La Pine incorporation issue has deadlines and action must be taken immediately. Catherine Morrow stated that Title 20 is the main topic being addressed in the Redmond UGB item, and it needs further review. A timeline has been set and it is hoped that these amendments will be adopted by September. 8. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of the Adoption of Findings Regarding the Proposed Incorporation of La Pine, Supporting the Placement of the Incorporation on the November 7, 2006 Ballot (Staff Report, Economic Feasibility, Findings, UUC Map, Zoning Map, Roads, Roads & Zoning). Commissioner Luke read the opening statement. (A copy is attached as Exhibit A) Laurie Craghead explained what is meant by "quasi judicial", wherein the Board convenes similarly to a judge for a particular issue. Regarding ex parte contacts, bias, conflicts of interest or prejudgment, the Commissioners were asked if they had anything to disclose. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 3 of 17 Pages Commissioners Clarno and Daly indicated they had nothing to disclose. Commissioner Luke stated that he took part in work sessions that were open to the public. Questions were asked and clarification was given on a variety of points, but no formal action was taken. There were no challenges from the audience. Laurie Craghead stated that the Clerk has certified at least 20% of the signatures on the petition. The Board's determinations include whether the City would be economically feasible at the $1.98 per thousand permanent tax rate limit. She said that the other primary question is whether the petition meets land use regulations. These are the only two questions the Board can address. If these two questions can be affirmatively answered, the Board must place this on the November ballot. Postings have been done, including maps, as required by statute. The entire file relating to this issue was physically placed before the Board. Ms. Craghead stated that she appreciates the efforts of Community Development staff, the Surveyor and the Assessor, who all did a lot of work on this issue during a short period of time. A draft order is included in the documents to be considered, as is the legal description, which is quite lengthy. There is also a set of maps, which includes a GIS map of the proposed boundary, one with the quarter section lines, and the Assessor's maps with a boundary outline. The draft findings are also to be considered; this document includes as much information as possible based on what was submitted by the petitioners' attorney and Community Development staff. Ms. Craghead stated that the few items of missing information should be provided this morning. The staff report is separate from the findings. It lists the decisions the Board could make. In the notice of hearing, it was stated this information would be available at least seven days before the hearing; however, even though it was available in printed form, it did not make it to the website until a day later. There are no requirements that this information be posted on the website, but it has been available there for at least six days. The revised economic feasibility report was also made available to the public, as was a list of questions for the petitioners as asked by staff and Legal Counsel. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 4 of 17 Pages The timeline indicates the Board's decision has to be made at least ninety days prior to the election; the deadline would, therefore, be Wednesday, August 9. The decision will be sent to the petitioner and to those who testify today. It is recorded with the Clerk, and must be mailed by August 8. There were some applicable criteria listed in the opening statement, and there is more detailed in the staff report. Per adoption of the findings, there were previously some inaccurate details, but the key points have been corrected. Ms. Craighead pointed out the boundaries on an oversized map. The boundaries include the entire rights of way of the roads. A separate small triangle is going to be split and lot line adjusted into another property. There are a few other adjustments to be made. Ms. Craghead indicated that the colors on the maps indicate the current zoning. She said that there were some other questions regarding the boundaries, relating to how services would be provided to the various properties. There is no requirement for the provision of improved services to be within a city. In the questions submitted to the petitioners, staff asked the petitioners to clarify what kind of planning services the city would provide or if they would contract with the County for some services. Commissioner Luke asked how long it would be before the elected officials start operating the city. Ms. Craghead said there will be twenty days for them to survey, and the Board has to canvass the votes. Commissioner Daly asked about the makeup of the city council. Ms. Craghead replied that they would be voted in this coming election. The candidates need to submit their information no earlier than 100 days but in no less than 80 days. Of course, the election of the council is contingent upon the incorporation efforts being successful. There are items in the budget for building permits but not for land use permitting. Statewide land use planning goals #3 through #7 would be included. A question was also brought up relating to law enforcement services; it is assumed the Sheriff will contract with the city. An assumption has been made that sewer and water will be provided, but this issue has not been completely answered yet. There has been discussion about not providing water to the Wickiup Junction area, although it already has it. Also, transportation issues could be an issue, as with other cities. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 5 of 17 Pages Regarding energy issues, Goal 3, recycling has been included but needs to be further explained. On page 5 regarding public input, Ms. Craghead said that there were apparently various public meetings held. The petition included an aerial photo, but there is no description in statute as to what is a map. A GIS map was also provided. Some corrections were made in the findings because the 2000 document was utilized and revised. It talks about the city providing health services; but these would be merely water and sewer. They would assume the boundaries of the existing water department. On page 10 of the findings, most roads were not accepted; the County maintains twenty of the thirty roads. They also need to include resource lands in the findings. The twelve acres of Baldwin-Herndon Trust land is a question. Under economic development the Board needs to clarify that the consideration of a transfer of the Newberry Industrial Park is not being considered at this time. There was no discussion that this would happen even though it was included in the findings, as a result of previous actions. About 4.5 acres of land would be donated for affordable housing projects. Under Goal 14, page 8, ESEE was left out of the environmental paper. The tax rate limit would be based on the total assessed value, divided by the budget to result in the $1.98. They do not have to levy that amount the first year. Commissioner Luke stated that only the city council can determine the rate, along with citizen members of their budget committee. Ms. Craghead said that the Board sets the permanent tax rate, and this group would determine the levy amount. Also, on page 8, procedural corrections have been made. Commissioner Luke explained that the city limits are larger than the urban growth boundary in this case. Ms. Craghead said that an urban growth boundary is not proposed at this time. The city has four years to do its land use planning and to create a comprehensive plan. The findings stated that what will likely happen is if more area is needed for open space or resource land, it would be expanded. The Bureau of Land Management has land that could be given to the city if it incorporates. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 6 of 17 Pages Catherine Morrow clarified that BLM would not necessarily just give the land, but if it is needed for community expansion for any reason, they would go through the required land use process. Commissioner Luke asked if there were any questions for staff; none were offered. He stated that legal counsel advised the Commissioners that they can't consider whether incorporation is a good or bad idea; they have to consider a limited, specific criteria. At this time there was a brief recess to allow citizens to fill out cards to testify and to give the petitioner some time to get set up. Bob Cox, the Chair of the La Pine PAC, thanked the County's staff and others for their help. He introduced Jane Benner, a La Pine resident and PAC volunteer, and Ed Trumpkee, the attorney for the PAC who is helping with the process. Mr. Cox said that the incorporation efforts are meant to protect La Pine's small town feel, because of the great deal of growth in the area. This is a refinement of the previous efforts of 2000. They hope this will provide a better environment for families and others; at this time there is no organized voice to steer growth in the area. If incorporation is delayed, growth will still continue but the situation would worsen and it will be harder to accomplish what needs to be done later. Jane Benner reiterated that her involvement is because of a desire to help La Pine grow in an organized manner. It is the largest unincorporated area in Oregon, and it is time for La Pine to work for itself instead of relying on the County. They will need the County's help to get to that point. Ed Trumpkee said that before going into the questions that have been asked, he wanted to give a flavor of why there are so many questions. Statute has changed somewhat, but the funding pieces haven't changed much for decades. No sewer system was needed then, nor were paved roads. That's not acceptable now. The land use laws of the 1970's have made it difficult to incorporate cities. Some felt that land use planners feared that Sunriver might incorporate, and the timber industry at the time didn't want destination resorts. This has changed and timber is no longer an issue, resorts are more desirable and the laws changed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 7 of 17 Pages After the City of Keizer organized, Rashneespuram tried, and then the City of Damascus organized. They received a loan from metro to organize their land use planning efforts. They are still doing so two years later due to conflicting needs and interests, and have only four years to complete the process. After the November 7 election there are thirty days for the City to be declared from the election results, and there won't be a council in place yet. Councilors have to be sworn in on January 2. It is somewhat complicated because the City would be in limbo if what exists does not get adopted during the interim. The City could adopt the existing garbage collection franchise, for instance. Common sense has to rule since the laws don't deal with it very well. It is hoped that during December the new council would sit with the County to work out the details. After January the council would need to look for tax anticipation notes, borrowing against the first year's income to be able to hire staff. The State Department of Economic Development or the Legislature can provide a way to have a new city borrow these funds to cover the interim period of time. Something has to be done to finance the first part of the city's existence. It is a practical problem. All during this time they would coordinate with the County, and it is hoped that city council candidates declare soon and start talking about these issues with County staff, citizens and others. Cities are about people and they have to work all of this out. In four years the comprehensive plan would be adopted. LCDC pushed this in the late seventies, and some plans were ten years overdue before they were adopted. This might have to be negotiated with the State. Mr. Trumpkee then answered some of the questions that had been submitted. Regarding properties being split inside or outside of the boundaries, he said they are all separate properties; the trade properties were to be split but the lines were not drawn correctly. Those properties are benefited as they will need city services. Laurie Craghead said that it is unknown if several properties are separate tax lots even though they could be separate deed lots. Some parcels have the same ownership. She indicated this could take a partition action. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 8 of 17 Pages Mr. Trumpkee stated that statutes don't always agree. Generally speaking, tax lots can be conveyed separately even if they were a part of an original patent. They may not be buildable, though. Being a separate tax lot should separate the transferability. He said that there is a small triangular sliver of land relating to the land swap between Mr. Young and the County. Mr. Young didn't want it brought in, but it would be eligible for annexation. It may need to be brought in to an urban growth boundary before other lands are. There was a question regarding how adding the cemetery would benefit. He said that the property won't change significantly in its service level because of a lack of funding. It will take years to get up and running. It is maintained through volunteer efforts and doesn't require a lot of work. He added that the group overseeing the cemetery had indicated a hope that it would come under the city's care eventually. In regard to a question regarding findings of economic feasibility for increased service levels, Mr. Trumpkee stated that it is not required by statute but is proposed by the city. The city has to spend its money on land use planning and comprehensive planning, and will also do street maintenance and provide water service, but may never take over fire control. The city people will talk with the County about the cost of maintaining roads. The County doesn't want to maintain city streets, so the city would take them over gradually. Commissioner Luke said that agreements were entered into with Bend and Redmond, but not until the late 1990's. However, once the city takes them over, they can't give them back. The city needs to be in a position to take care of them. Mr. Trumpkee stated that the tax rate would be similar to that of Sisters, with not a lot to spare. A small town budget committee won't want to tax any more than necessary. Ms. Craghead pointed out that recreational opportunities are not listed in the budget. Mr. Trumpkee said that this couldn't begin in the first three years. Open space in the land to the west might be best used as park land. There is a park south of Burgess Road already. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 9 of 17 Pages Ms. Craghead noted that there is nothing in the budget for land use planning, just for building services. Ms. Benner replied that much of this could be outsourced to begin with. The new city council would have to determine how to use the funds. The category was consolidated. Similar to Sisters, there would be a planner plus two part-time clerical staff. She added that staffing would be lean for the first three years. City staff and administration would be hired on a 32-hour per week basis until it is known specifically what their duties are. The budget allows for increases in salary to convert those positions to full-time eventually. In regard to law enforcement, much depends on whether the Sheriff's taxing district is approved. The city would probably want to contract at first. There are too many possibilities until the taxing district outcome is known. Citizens have to pay for it one way or another, though. Ms. Craghead pointed out that the Sheriff's patrol deputies can't enforce city laws unless there is a contract in place, as is done in Sisters. Mr. Trumpkee explained that for land use services, there are a couple of different pieces. Land use could be long-term or short-term development. The short-term is funded by development fees. There is not enough money to hire an expert to work on the comprehensive plan, so the State and others would be asked to help. The State created a burdensome process for new cities that doesn't work well. The intent is for the city to adopt the County zoning maps at first. There is a line item for counsel. Tax anticipation notes could be used if no other sources, such as grants, can be found. Mr. Trumpkee stated that they have not relied on the La Pine Industrial Park as a funding source since it is being developed and sold by the County. In response to a question about the existing SDC for the traffic light, the bottom line is they will keep going with what the County has done until the City is better organized, and will then talk with the County and State about where future lights should be. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 10 of 17 Pages Mr. Trumpkee said that his firm deals with SDC's quite often. They have been on both sides of the issue for issues regarding traffic, water, sewer, storm water, and parks & recreation. He would recommend the city negotiate with someone who does SDC studies in order to figure out what the city would need for the next five years. This could be a significant source of long-term improvement plan funding. SDC's can't be used to repair things, just for capital improvements, but paving roads could be considered a capital improvement. In regard to the existing sewer system, Ms. Benner stated there would be a water and sewer budget, and it would provide for repayment as originally agreed. Tom Anderson stated that in regard to SDC's in the New Neighborhood, with Pahlisch Homes the County acts as the intake mechanism for building permits, but doesn't charge an exact amount; funds come from Pahlisch which is then issued as a credit against the sewer work. The County had received a grant for this work. In regard to gas tax funds, Ms. Benner stated that it can be used only for roads. Mr. Trumpkee added that they didn't try to put an exact budget together, but just complied with local budget law. Tom Anderson said that the agreement Community Development has with the City of Redmond is that the County does building plan review and inspections; the City handles its own permits, intake, records keeping and tracking. If the County works with La Pine on all aspects, the agreement would be different. Ms. Benner stated that the City would have to rely on the County for expertise and staffing at first. Mr. Trumpkee said that in regard to franchise fees and room taxes, an ordinance would be adopted after incorporation, as quickly as possible in order to get revenue sources secured. Ms. Benner added that the room tax income information was obtained from the Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner Luke suggested she check with County Finance to verify the numbers. It was pointed out that water service is already being provided to Wickiup Junction. For solid waste services, they will probably just use the current franchise. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 11 of 17 Pages Regarding a question of continued planning and regional problem solving, many discussions have taken place and a lot has been accomplished. By providing city services to an industrial area, jobs will be created. However, the Little Deschutes River and other streams will need to be protected. A larger area will be served by city sewer and water systems, an expansion of what is now in place. There will be greater benefits over a longer period of time. The hearing was now opened up to public testimony. Charles Williams, 51879 Hollinshead Place, La Pine, said he was attending just to learn what is going on and to put a face to the community. Many people don't want development and construction. Incorporation could create a great environment and could be a good thing, with citizens coming in who can add a lot in terms of money, character and activities. This is part of making history and he would like it be successful. Barbara Ann Nelson-Dotzon, President of the Water District, said her biggest concern is the takeover of the water services. There is nothing stated about how they are going to pay the $3 million debt. The rent is zero, utilities are zero. Funding through the U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn't allow anyone to be there without compensation, so the loan would have to be bought out. The sewer district loan is through that also. She would like to know how this will be handled legally. She is also concerned about franchise fees. The people get sewer, water and garbage services now; will the rates go up along with the taxes. She has always been for incorporation but has concerns about the money issues. Ms. Craghead said that the amount was divided between the values of the properties, which is the normal way of doing it, through assessed valuation. She added that there was talk about taking over the districts, and the budget would be the same. Testimony has been that nothing would change. Commissioner Luke said that franchise fees from cable, power and gas would bring in about $150,000. This would be passed on. The motel tax would partially go to retire the welcome center debt. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 12 of 17 Pages James Clark said that he appreciates this opportunity to talk. He had questions regarding animal control, building, planning, road costs and maintenance. Ms. Craghead stated that she believes there is an item in the budget for building permits, a part-time planner and a city manager combination. Commissioner Luke stated that permits for wells are issued by the Department of Water Resources. Domestic wells go with the property. The city has no say over those. Mr. Clark asked about the hotel tax. Commissioner Luke stated that the County does not collect within the city limits. Finance can advise him as to how much comes from within La Pine. Mr. Clark said that a friend was annexed into the City of Bend, with no new services but taxes went up. He asked about annexation into La Pine. Commissioner Luke replied that they do not have a UGB, just city limits, and they would have to establish a UGB land use process, which is very lengthy and complicated. They have to justify why they need to do so. Sue Clark said she had no questions but went through incorporation before. She said their taxes went up but they got no additional benefits. Ms. Craghead replied that the proposed budget is not to provide water or sewer, so nothing isn't being added that isn't already served. Albert Bower of Newberry Estates said he is not in the city. He wanted to talk about developing and airport. There are private aircraft owners and pilots who are interested in doing so. He said he is not in favor of this. He had concerns about how they would get the land, who would pay for construction and road alignment, and that this would only benefit a few people. He is concerned that the new city council could dictate what happens in the rest of the area. He did not like the fact that the County provided funds for legal services. Commissioner Luke stated that the County has helped other communities in this way. It is not unusual for the larger government agency to help out in some fashion. Outside legal counsel had to be hired due to the short time frame. He added that areas cannot be annexed without a vote of the people. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 13 of 17 Pages Lupita Lewis of 52089 Dorrance Meadow said that the boundaries presented in a July meeting are much different than those now considered. She is concerned also about annexation. Commissioner Luke said that a city usually has a UGB larger than the city limits. This city does not have a comprehensive plan. Once city limits are established, it takes four years to establish the UGB. Over a period of years it could expand out to the city limits. State law requires twenty years of growth in the UGB. It will take quite a while for the city to get to that point. Ms. Lewis stated that she feels La Pine has potential but that right now is not the best time. There are too many outside influences and too many unanswered questions about budgets and land use. Mitchell Raley, who owns property in Lazy River South, said he is excited about incorporation and wants to be a part of it, but is outside the proposed area. Ms. Craghead stated that to add his property would require showing that the area would be benefited. Mr. Raley stated that he would like to be served by sewer and water. Bob Cox said that he wanted to clarify the comments about the airport. Commissioner Luke stated that the previous testimony was a personal opinion. Ed Trompke of Portland, attorney, stated that it is up to the City Council regarding the airport. In regard to annexation, if someone wants to be annexed and are contiguous, they don't have to be voted in by the public. It is not cheap or easy, and the UGB has to be adopted first. Groundwater in Oregon is the property of the state of Oregon. Cities can't usurp whatever the State does. Residential wells allow for irrigation of V2 acre. This is probably one of the most broken laws in the state. Commissioner Daly pointed out that the initial plan is to hire a part-time land use administrator for 32 hours a week. It will be hard to find someone to do that. Commissioner Luke observed that he feels the questions he had have been answered, and based on economic feasibility and land use law, they have met that burden. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 14 of 17 Pages Commissioner Clarno added that she feels they have met the burden. She clarified that the Board's decision is whether this should go to the voters. Commissioner Daly indicated that he also feels they have met the burden. It's a big job and there will be pitfalls along the way, but there is enough to convince him that they are headed in the right direction. Catherine Morrow added that there is a letter from LCDC that says the State will likely provide grant funding for the city's long-range comprehensive plan work. CLARNO: Move approval of Document No. 2006-407, the decision, to be completed tomorrow. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-106, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Health Department Fund. Mr. Kanner gave a brief overview of the item. DALY: Move approval. CLARNO: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 10. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-107, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Mental Health Department Fund. DALY: Move approval. CLARNO: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 15 of 17 Pages VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 11. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-108, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Sheriffs Office Fund. DALY: Move approval. CLARNO: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 12. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-109, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes county Information Technology Department Fund. DALY: Move approval. CLARNO: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 13. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for The Oregon Store, Sunriver and Sisters. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 16 of 17 Pages Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m. DATED this 7th Day of August 2006 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. D nnis R. Luke, Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Agenda Sign-in cards Preliminary statement and staff report Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 17 of 17 Pages Bev Clarno, Vice Chair Z/ I PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS This is a quasi-judicial hearing on a petition for incorporation of a proposed City of La Pine. ORS 221.040(2) provides that upon the filing of a petition for incorporation the County 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. ORS 197.175(1) states and the Oregon Supreme Court determined that establishing a city boundary is a land use decision. The County land use file number is PA -06-4. 1. Burden of Proof and Applicable Criteria A. The petitioners have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the proposal sought. B. The standards applicable to the application before us are: ORS 221 - Organization and Governance of Cities. ORS 197 - Statewide Planning Goals OAR 660-14 - Administrative rule regarding incorporation The County Comprehensive Plan C. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria, as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision. D. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Page 1 of 3-Chair's Opening Statement for BOCC Land Use Hearings File: PA-06-4 Date of Hearing: August 7, 2006 II. Hearings Procedure A. Evidence to be reviewed by the Board. The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the staff report and staff comments based on the record before the Board, and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. 111111. Order of Presentation A. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. 1. The staff will give a report. 2. The petitioners will then have an opportunity to offer testimony and evidence. 3. Proponents of the proposal then the opponents will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. 4. The petitioners will then be allowed to present rebuttal testimony but may not present new evidence. 5. At the Board's discretion, if the petitioners presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. 6. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. 7. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. B. If anyone wishes to ask a question of a witness, the person may direct the question to the Chair during that person's testimony, or, if the person has already testified, after all other witnesses have testified but before the Applicant's rebuttal. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. Page 2 of 3-Chair's Opening Statement for BOCC Land Use Hearings File: PA-06-4 Date of Hearing: August 7, 2006 IV. Pre-Hearing Contacts, Biases, Conflicts of Interest A. Do any of the Commissioners have any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations; biases; or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the nature and extent of those. B. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex-parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) STAFF REPORT Page 3 of 3-Chair's Opening Statement for BOCC Land Use Hearings File: PA-06-4 Date of Hearing: August 7, 2006 LLJ CV Cn . . C%4 Cn C*4 LAJ ~ d ED c-a C7 C-,4 Lai L" to a a ■ ~M° U- Ql- b. ea v i I.. 147 E a .-a ev 00 fei~ r ---w- I Ritz 001, ~ 2i~ J- ~j LU 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 Boundary 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 Feasibilit 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/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 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 Salving chapter of the County Comprehensive Plan. This chapter was not mentioned at all in the Findings discussing the County Comprehensive Plan. 4 ~l _.~!_ii l r / / I / j , / i 1 i. 1 t Current Zoning Proposed La Pine Incorporation Boundary MF TES i x 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 TIME: 9:00 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 Background 1. On July 12, 2006 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Order 2006-117 accepting a petition and setting a date of August 7, 2006 for a public hearing on the incorporation of the City of La Pine. 2. The subject property is located in Townships 21 and 22, South, Ranges 10 and 11, East. The property is further described in Map "A" of the Petitioner's petition which is incorporated by reference herein. 3. The property subject to the petition is comprised of approximately 7 square miles or 4,465 acres. Of those, approximately 1,936 acres are in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community (UUC). Of the remainder, 622.16 acres are in the RR-10 zone, 151.03 acres are in the Floodplain zone, 133.28 acres are zoned OS&C, 12.6 acres are zoned Rural Industrial, 258.62 acres are in the EFU zone and 1,352.01 acres are in a Forest zone. 4. According to the Petitioner, the subject property includes approximately 7 square miles, with an initial permanent resident population of approximately 2,000 persons. 5. The Petitioner's proposal is documented in a revised Economic Feasibility Statement dated July 28, 2006, and a findings document dated July 25, 2006. These documents are incorporated as exhibits for informational purposes only. They do not signify staff agreement, adoption, or approval of factual or legal statements contained in materials referenced. 6. In the year 2000, the La Pine Community Action Team submitted a petition for incorporation which encompassed an area significantly larger than that proposed by the La Pine Political Action Committee today. Based on findings the Board approved placing the incorporation petition on the November 2000 ballot. The measure failed. 7. In 2001 Deschutes County though a Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning program received acknowledgment from the Department of Land Conservation and Development to expand the La Pine Urban Unincorporated community to include Wickiup Junction Rural Service Center, approximately 500 acres of County owned land and land owed by the Baldwin Herndon Trust. At that time three planning areas were created: The La Pine Planning Area, the Neighborhood Planning Area and the Wickiup Junction Planning Area. The La Pine Planning Area included County owned land and the Baldwin Herndon Trust land. This area was designated as the receiving area for transferred development rights under a program designed to protect the groundwater in the La Pine basin. 8. In September of 2005, the BLM completed an amendment to the Brothers-La Pine Resource Management Plan which designates the land immediately to the east of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroad and within the proposed city limits as Z2 and Z3 lands, which then officially makes those lands available for community expansion. La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 2 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, 1000 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 Staff Comments Proposed Boundary The question the Board of Commissioners has to consider is whether the properties included within the boundaries of the new city are benefited. Staff finds that the proposed boundary is a relatively logical and manageable boundary. It includes the entire La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community, adjacent rural residential land, adjacent BLM land identified for community expansion, and adjacent EFU and flood plain land that may be suitable for parks, open space or planned for future expansion of urban uses. The benefits to the properties in the proposed boundary are outlined in Section 2.2.2 of the findings (pgs 7 - 8). Overall, the findings identify four major benefits: ■ self-governance ■ improved service delivery ■ improved quality of life ■ economic vitality and representation of local interests. The first and fourth benefit state that local control will produce decisions and services more in line with local needs and interests, a conclusion that appears reasonable. The third benefit states that incorporation will lead to an improved quality of life and economic vitality. The findings note that this benefit is intangible and hard to prove. The second benefit, improved service delivery, should be easier to analyze. However, based on the submitted findings and budget, it is not clear how the proposed city will be able to offer the services currently provided by the County, much less how it will be able to provide improved services. Additionally, there appears to be some confusion over services that the proposed city would offer. For example, the benefits section cites land use planning, code enforcement, nuisance abatement, and enhanced park and recreation activities for youth and adults; but funding for these services is not identified in the budget. This issue may be remedied over time, but given the current budget it is not clear. Economic Feasibility The following are a few of the concerns with the Economic Feasibility Statement (budget) and how it coordinates with the findings document. An issue is that both the budget and the findings discuss an increased level of service for area residents, but this increase is not supported by facts. The Summary of Services is outlined in the Findings, Table 1, Summary of Services, page 13. 1. The proposed city would be operated for the first three years with one Administrator/Planner (initially working 32 hours/week) and two part time clerical assistants. This assumes the city can find a staff person with a skill set that includes administration, planning, staffing the City Council, public works/engineering, recreation and events planning and economic development, for $36,000 /year. In contrast, the city of Sisters, with a smaller but similar population, employs 16 people. 2. It is not possible to determine if the road maintenance would improve since there is no analysis or estimate of how the funds budgeted for road maintenance will be spent. (i.e. maintain x miles of roads at y dollars/mile). The proposal assumes that the County will La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 4 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 SECTION 3: LAND USE REQUIREMENTS Land Use Criteria The following apply to this application: A. Oregon Administrative Rules interpreting the goals and applicable statutes: OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 4 (Goal 2 Exceptions Process), 6 (Forest Lands), 8 (Goal 10 Housing), 9 (Industrial and Commercial Development), 10 (Citizen Involvement), 11 (Public Facilities Planning), 12 (Transportation Planning), 14 (New Cities), 16 (Goal 5),18 (Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendment Review), and 33 (Agricultural Land). B. Statewide Planning Goals 1 through 14: OAR 660-15-000(1) to OAR 660-15-000(14). C. Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197, Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination. D. Oregon Revised Statutes Chapters 215, County Planning, and 221, Cities. E. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Deschutes County Code Title 23. F. Deschutes County Code Zoning Procedures and Subdivision. Titles 18, 22, 17. Application of the Statewide Planning Goals and the County Comprehensive Plan Oregon's land use statutes, as interpreted by Oregon's appellate courts, define the responsibility of the county governing body in this proceeding, and, by extension, the nature and scope of the application of various state and local standards and criteria. ORS 197.175(1) explicitly makes county consideration of a petition to incorporate a new city an exercise of county planning and zoning responsibility. The statute requires that: Cities and Counties shall exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities including, but not limited to, a city or special district boundary change which shall mean the annexation of unincorporated territory by a city, the incorporation of a new city, and the formation or change of organization of or annexation to any special district in accordance with ORS Chapters 196 and 197 and the goals approved under ORS Chapters 196 and 197. ORS 195.025 assigns to county governing bodies the responsibility to coordinate land use planning within their jurisdictions, as follows: In addition to the responsibilities stated in ORS 197.175, each county, through its governing body, shall be responsible for coordinating all planning activities affecting land uses within the county, including planning activities of the county, cities, special districts, and state agencies, to assure an integrated comprehensive plan for the entire area of the county.... La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 6 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 realism 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 In Part II of its decision, referred to in the above paragraph, the Court said: The goals are designed to be applied during a local government's preparation of a comprehensive plan, a process in which a county court's actions with regard to an incorporation petition are not normally a part. As a result, a county's consideration of the goals incident to an incorporation petition differs from a city's or county's application of the goals during the planning process in which specific uses are proposed for specific parcels of land. A county discharges its planning and zoning responsibilities with regard to whether a proposed incorporation is in accordance with the goals if the county is satisfied that after a successful incorporation election it is reasonably likely that the newly incorporated city can and will comply with the goals once the city assumes primary responsibility for comprehensive planning in the area to be incorporated. The county's determination must be supported in the record like any other county land use decision." 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 299 Or 344, 360, 367-68, 703 P2d 207 (1985). The Supreme Court apparently interprets the statutory obligation of the county to exercise its planning and zoning authority concerning incorporations in accordance with statewide land use planning goals to be imposed directly and specifically by ORS 197.175 so that it continues even after the acknowledgement of the county's comprehensive plan. Application of the County Comprehensive Plan to Incorporation Petitions ORS 197.175(1) also requires counties to assure that land use decisions, including decisions approving, modifying, or denying petitions for incorporation, comply with applicable provisions of comprehensive plans and land use ordinances. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies implement the statewide goals. Like the Goals, the Plan's Goals and Policies apply with varying degrees of specificity to the proposed incorporation. For example, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Plan's Urbanization Chapter contains Goals and Policies which duplicate the urbanization factors and other elements of the statewide Urbanization Goal. Other Goals and Policies in the same Chapter expand upon the Goal requirements by separately addressing related issues under the headings Coordination, Residential Development, Commercial, Industrial, Community Appearance, Urban Transportation, Facilities and Services, and Other. The County's responsibility to make this land use decision in accordance with its comprehensive plan is direct and immediate. In addition, it must look forward to how the proposed city will deal with the plan pending adoption of its own plan and implementing ordinances. ORS 215.130(2) provides that a county's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances shall continue to apply to land inside a newly incorporated city unless and until the city provides otherwise. However, ORS 197.175 imposes upon a newly incorporated city a separate obligation to comply with statewide goals and to make land use decisions in accordance with statewide goals "...if its [the city's] comprehensive plan and land use regulations have not been acknowledged by the commission." The same statute requires cities to adopt comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. Based upon these statutes, it appears that a newly incorporated city must make land use decisions from the outset in accordance with both the statewide goals and with the county's La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 8 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 statewide planning goals, it is not clear how this work would be funded or how the city would fund current planning, either before or after it adopts its own plan and zoning regulations. Goals 3 and 4 - Agricultural and Forest Lands The proposed boundary includes 259 acres of land planned and zoned for agricultural use under Goal 3 and 1,352 acres of land planned and zoned for forest use under Goal 4 in the County Comprehensive Plan. The findings state that most of these lands will remain planned and zoned for farm and forest use because they will not be needed for residential use and that the city's comprehensive plan and ordinances can continue to protect these lands for farm and forest use. As these lands are needed for urban uses the city will be required to include them in the UGB and take the necessary exceptions. The BLM land zoned for forest uses is designated as "Community Expansion" in the Upper Deschutes Management Plan. This will assist the community in expanding the UGB in the future when exceptions to Goals 3 and 4 can be justified based on a need for urban land. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Historic, Scenic and Natural Resources The findings (pg 27) state that the proposed boundary includes three types of Goal 5 resources. In fact, the boundary includes four Goal 5 resources identified as significant in the County Comprehensive Plan. These are: one historic building (La Pine Commercial Club), a deer migration corridor, scenic corridors along the Little Deschutes River and Highway 97 and Burgess and Huntington Roads, and designated wetlands. The city intends to keep and implement the County Goal 5 program until the City adopts its own plan and regulations. One issue is whether to keep the existing historic resource and code protection under the existing Deschutes County Landmarks Commission. Another issue is whether to retain scenic corridor protection along the state highway and Huntington and Burgess roads. These are local decisions, since historic, scenic and open space protections are optional Goal 5 resources. The city will have to consult with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine if and how to address the deer migration corridor. Wetlands are protected by state and federal regulations and the city will have to comply with Goal 5 for this resource. The findings indicate that the city intends to and will be able to address Goal 5 in its comprehensive plan and regulations. Goal 6 - Air Water and Land Resources Quality The findings (pg 27) indicate that the city could enhance air quality through providing employment closer to residential areas. It is likely that the proposed city could meet the requirements for the protection of air, water and land quality. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards Goal 7 applies to wildfire and flooding hazard. There is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard area within the proposed boundary. This flood hazard area is regulated by the County by flood plain zoning. The city will have to maintain or develop regulations to meet federal requirements in order to receive federal flood insurance. It is feasible for the proposed city to do so. Wildfire hazard is extreme in the South County because of the urban rural forest interface. The city will be within the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District. The city can work with the La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 10 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 district the land is currently served by individual onsite waste systems and individual wells. The city will have to determine the level of service for areas outside of the current district boundaries. Road maintenance of approximately 10 miles of public roads will be provided by the city. The proposal assumes that the County will maintain County roads. The city will be required to provide land use planning, and code enforcement services. These services are not covered in the budget. The findings state that the city will contract with the County for the fist year of planning services. There is no discussion of code enforcement in the findings. Goal 12 - Transportation The findings (pgs 34-36) summarize the existing Transportation System Plan and transportation studies and plans that have been completed for the area. The findings recognize that the city will be required to complete a TSP in conformance with Goal 12 and the Administrative Rule. This work will likely have to be contracted. The County adopted system development charges (SDC) for the area south of La Pine Recreation Road to fund four stop lights that are located in the proposed boundary. The findings do not address whether or how incorporation would affect the SDC program. Goal 13 - Energy The findings (pg 37) state that the city "...will be required to undertake recycling of solid waste in concert with solid waste haulers." It is not clear from the budget how this will be funded. Goal 14 - Urbanization The incorporation findings propose an unusual situation where the city boundary is larger than the Urban Growth Boundary. The Petitioner states in the findings (pg 8) that the UGB will likely be the existing UUC. The lands within the incorporation boundary but outside of a potential UGB include Rural Residential, Forest, Farm and Flood Plain zoned land. These lands will be available for future incorporation into the UGB or continue to be planned and zoned for rural uses. Staff finds that it is possible that a UGB can be created to comply with Goal 14 and associated administrative rules. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan The findings (pg 40-47) address various chapters in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The findings conclude that the incorporation proposal either compiles with or is at least not inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. There are some inaccurate references to sections of the County Plan. For example, the discussion about Growth Management: Rural Development findings (pg 42) discusses the Comprehensive Plan chapter on Rural Development, but in the conclusion references the Unincorporated Communities Chapter. Other relevant sections of the Plan, such as Regional Problem Solving (Chapter 23.44) have not been addressed in the findings. Policies in this chapter and the Unincorporated Communities chapter shift development from County lands to lands that would lie inside the proposed city. The Neighborhood Planning Area in the UUC was created to focus development in a central location, while discouraging development in outlying areas where there are water quality and fire concerns. This is done through a program of transferable development rights. Because the policies include lands inside and outside the proposed city boundary, to maintain consistency with the County Plan arrangements would have to be made to ensure that this system continues to function. La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 12 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 SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS AND OPTIONS Conclusions As noted above, in order to approve the petition for incorporation, the record must support a finding by the Board that: 1. The proposed boundary correctly includes all lands that would be benefited from being in the proposed city. 2. The taxation rate will support the proposed services. 3. After a successful incorporation election, it is reasonably likely that the newly incorporated city can and will comply with the statewide planning goals Staff finds the proposal demonstrates that it is feasible for the city to meet the statewide planning goals though establishment of an urban growth boundary that is the same as the La Pine UUC. Such a UGB would meet Goals 11 and 14 and be consistent with the County comprehensive plan because the UUC is already urban and contains urban public facilities. The incorporated city outside of the UGB would include resource land, exception land and Goal 5 land that would have to be zoned similarly to the existing County zones to meet the statewide goals and be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. If the city establishes a UGB that includes areas outside of the existing UUC it will have the burden of meeting all Goal requirements especially Goals 2, 11, and 14. Staff finds that it is possible that the city could take additional exceptions or include existing exception lands with appropriate findings and coordination with the County. The city will also have to ensure that the plan and zoning will continue to implement Regional Problem Solving requirements in the Neighborhood Planning Area that link development with programs to address the groundwater issues in the rural County. Goal 5 compliance can be accomplished by keeping the County inventories and regulations or developing a new Goal 5 program for resources within the UGB. While is appears that the proposed city could comply with the state goals and County Comprehensive Plan, it is not clear from the findings and the budget how the creation of the comprehensive plan, including required public involvement, would be funded. The Board must determine that the findings presented by the petitioner demonstrate that it is reasonably likely that the newly incorporated city can and will comply with the goals once the city assumes primary responsibility for comprehensive planning in the area to be incorporated. Options Based upon its analysis of the petition and Economic Feasibility Statement, staff offers the Board of County Commissioners the following options. 1. Approval: The findings and Economic Feasibility Statement offer enough detail to meet the three tests. The Board of County Commissioners will refer the matter of the incorporation of the City of La Pine as set forth in the petition to the voters at the next general election to be held November 7, 2006 with no changes to the boundaries of the proposed city as all lands in the proposed boundary will be benefited by the incorporation. La Pine Incorporation Staff Report July 31, 2006 Page 14 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 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9 A.M., MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 La Pine - South County Services Building - 51340 Highway 97 1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA Items to be removed from the agenda, those that need to be delayed, etc. 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Visitors who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up sheet provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak. 3. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-125, Relinquishing a Reversionary Interest in Certain Real Property (Redmond) - Susan Ross, Commissioners' Office 4. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-046, Declaring the Intent to Exchange Real Property (La Pine) - Susan Ross, Commissioners' Office 5. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Chair Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract Letter for Treatment Foster Care Services - Bob La Combe and/or Deevy Holcomb, Juvenile Community Justice 6. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-404, an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon regarding Public Health Services - Dan Peddycord, Health Department Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 1 of 5 Pages 7. DISCUSSION of Deliberations (Scheduled for Wednesday, August 9) of the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment, and Consideration of First and Second Reading and Adoption, by Emergency, or Ordinance No. 2006-018 and Ordinance No. 2006-019 - Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department 8. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of the Adoption of Findings Regarding the Proposed Incorporation of La Pine, Supporting the Placement of the Incorporation on the November 7, 2006 Ballot (Staff Report, Economic Feasibility, Findings, UUC Map, Zoning Map, Roads, Roads & Zoning) - Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department 9. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-106, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Health Department Fund - Marty Wynne, Finance 10. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-107, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Mental Health Department Fund - Marty Wynne, Finance 11. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-108, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Fund - Marty Wynne, Finance 12. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-109, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes county Information Technology Department Fund - Marty Wynne, Finance 13. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 2 of 5 Pages FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, August 7, 2006 9:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session - in La Pine, at the South County Services Center 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison 3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 1:30 p.m. Review of Title III Funding Applications 3:00 p.m. Work Session regarding Waldron Lot of Record Verification Appeal Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Work Session Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Fair Board, at the Fair & Expo Office Monday, August 14, 2006 12 noon Regular Meeting of Board and Department Heads 1:30 p.m. Work Session Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Monday, August 21, 2006 9:00 a.m. Meeting with Bill Linden regarding Legislative Issues/Lobbying 1:30 p.m. Work Session Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Pages Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Work Session Monday, August 28, 2006 1:30 p.m. Work Session Wednesday August 30, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Work Session Monday, September 4, 2006 Most County offices will be closed in observance of Labor Day. Wednesday, September 6 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting for the Week 1:30 p.m. Work Session 5:00 p.m. Meeting with Bend City Council Monday, September 11, 2006 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Work Session Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Redmond City Council 11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting of the Board and Fair Board, at the Fairgrounds Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 4 of 5 Pages Monday, September 18, 2006 1:30 p.m. Work Session Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Monday, September 25, 2006 1:30 p.m. Work Session Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Work Session Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, August 7, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Pages OT ES Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org ADDITION TO THE AGENDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for Gahagan and Sumner, Inc. - dba The Oregon Store, Sunriver and Sisters