Loading...
2010-2764-Minutes for Meeting July 19,2010 Recorded 7/28/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1111111111111111111111111111 111 2010-2764 RECORDS CLERK yJ p 07/28/2010 08:18:00 AM Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, JULY 19, 2010 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney; Commissioner Alan Unger was out of the office. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad, Peter Gutowsky, Anthony Raguine, Kevin Harrison and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Tom Blust and Roger Olson, Road Department; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract Letter for the Full-Depth Reclamation of Camp Polk Road. BANEY: Move Chair Signature of an Intent to Award Contract Letter to High Desert Aggregate & Paving for the full-depth reclamation of Camp Polk Road, in the Amount of $997,458. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 1 of 13 Pages 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (continued from July 7) and Consideration of First and Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2010-022, Amending the Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.216 to Comply with New State Statute Provisions, Amending Code to Revive Guest Ranch Provisions, and Adding to Code a Definition of Current Employment of Land for Farm Use. Paul Blikstad said this has to do with guest ranch provisions per State law and other changes made at the State level. He said that there is was recently an issue of whether a bed and breakfast is allowed in the EFU zone. Because of that, he brought up the fact that he had originally made a reference in the language under special uses, but that language has been removed. Being no testimony offered, the public hearing was closed. BANEY: Move first and second readings by title only of Ordinance No. 2010- 022, declaring an emergency. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Chair Luke conducted the first and second readings of the Ordinance, by title only. BANEY: Move adoption. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board were Deliberations and Decision on Whether Staff Properly Interpreted County Code Provisions Applicable to File #LM-10- 17 and LL-10-15 (Landscape Management Site Plan and Lot Line Adjustment - Applicant: Eitel). Kevin Harrison gave a brief overview of the issue. The record was closed on July 6. One letter was received during the comment period (a copy is attached for reference). Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 2 of 13 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that there was testimony at the previous hearing that did not directly relate to the situation and cannot be used to make a decision. Mr. Harrison said the Board can uphold staff's decisions as written: a site plan review of the structure; and a proposed lot line adjustment arranged with the abutting property owner. All of the parties are willing to make the lot line adjustment and it can proceed. Approval of both land use permits is necessary for Planning staff to sign off on the landscape management plan and ultimately the building permit. Commissioner Luke stated that the lot line adjustment would be necessary for a building to be placed where it is. It is also necessary to have a landscape management site plan approved. Ms. Craghead stated that the land use compatibility statement is necessary to proceed with permits. Commissioner Baney said that the structure is not permitted but already built, and the owners wish to bring it into compliance, but she wonders if a survey has been done to make sure that the setbacks are proper. She wants to do what she can within the law to correct this type of infraction. Mr. Harrison said that all three divisions (environmental health, building and planning) require a plot plan. No division requires a survey as part of this process. Ms. Craghead said that usually information provided by the owners is relied upon, except for a lot line adjustment which requires a survey. There is a fence on the other property lines. Commissioner Luke indicated concern about the location of the lot lines and sees nothing on the record that indicates there are correct distances from the side yard. Commissioner Baney added she does not want to rely on good faith efforts in this situation since the party involved did not act in good faith in the past. Mr. Harrison stated that a survey is required for the lot line adjustment. Tom Anderson said that the County made the conscious decision not to require a survey for most situations because of the cost involved for the applicants. On a submitted plot plan, however, the stamp lets the applicant know that they are assuming the liability if the plot plan is not accurate. If an error is made, they would have to make a lot line adjustment or remove a portion of the building to make this adjustment. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 3 of 13 Pages Commissioner Luke said that most people come in before building a structure instead of building it first and then finding out a lot line adjustment is needed. Commissioner Baney stated the only remedy for the neighbors is through the County, and she would like to bring the property back into line lawfully, and to make sure that the side setbacks are proper. If there is any way for the County to help with this clarification, it should be done. Ms. Craghead said that the required side setbacks are ten feet from the exterior wall. Mr. Kanner asked if Code is silent, does the Board have discretion to make an additional requirement. Ms. Craghead replied that the rules under the landscape management plan do not address this. BANEY: Move approval of the lot line adjustment. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. BANEY: Regarding LM-101, the Board will uphold staff's recommendation, subject to a survey by a licensed surveyor of the side yard and rear setbacks, with the final survey submitted to the County. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Commissioner Luke expressed concern about a structure that was built without benefit of inspections, including the foundation. He asked how that will be handled. Mr. Anderson stated that he cannot give an accurate answer to this question at this time. He has not been able to speak to the inspector today. Ms. Craghead said that a decision has been made orally, and this is an issue outside of the land use record. She recommended that the decision be signed before they discuss other aspects. Commissioner Luke would like to have the discussion anyway at the earliest possible time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 4 of 13 Pages Before the Board was a Hearing on a LUBA Remand of the County's Decision regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use to Surface Mining (Millican - 4R Equipment). Commissioner Luke read the opening statement at this time. In regard to conflicts of interest or ex parte contact, the Commissioners stated that all involvement has been in open meetings. No challenges from the audience were presented. Paul Blikstad gave a staff report. Over the weekend he received two a-mails that say mostly the same thing, but they had to do with issues that are no longer relevant. This morning a fax came in from someone who is opposed to the mining site. This issue came first before the Board in 2004. (He referred to an oversized aerial map of the area) Commissioner Luke said this remand is only on one area. Ms. Craghead stated that this only has to do with grazing allotments, including noise impacts on the domestic animals (cattle). Any other testimony would not be considered as part of the record. Mr. Blikstad said that a primary opponent asked to be included via phone, and was advised that this was not possible but that written testimony would be accepted. Commissioner Luke added that the conference phone can only handle two outside callers. This might be considered for expert testimony only. An allowance can be made to allow written testimony. Mr. Blikstad said that there is a tight timeframe involved, as the written decision needs to be back at LUBA by September 15. Bob Lovlien, attorney for the applicant since 2004, said that this remand was difficult to approach. He reminded the Board that the property is over 360 acres but the only portions that will be disturbed at any given time is about an acre plus a stockpiling location. Roger Borine of Bend is with the Natural Resources Conservation District and is an expert in this field. He has worked on these issues in several states for years. In regard to conservation planning, the plan developed in Oregon is used nationally now. The process he applied addresses a lot of factors: air, water, soil, vegetation, animal, wildlife and human concerns. He concluded that there should be no impact to ranching operations or cattle due to noise generated by mining activities. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 5 of 13 Pages Commission Luke said a lot of the report has to do with the flat pasture areas. Some is private and some is owned by government agencies. Mr. Borine said the report indicates it is the only pasture in the Horse Ridge allotment, with a common boundary. The map in the report lists names of pastures. There are six pastures in this allotment. It is non-irrigated rangeland. Commissioner Baney asked what happens when land is taken out of grazing. Mr. Borine said that no grazing in this pasture will be taken out of use. Commissioner Luke indicated that on page 5 it says that grazing is continuous. He asked if the animals get moved around so the land can regenerate. Mr. Borine said that on page 2 of the report, the allotment management plan from the BLM states that rangeland needs rest. The topography in the area has the other pasture areas being contiguous, and it makes it easier for the livestock to start low, going higher as the grass matures. The flat pasture is an area from which they move cows to other areas. Commissioner Luke asked when blasting and grinding would take place. Mr. Lovlien said this would normally take place in the winter months, but this is not part of the land use conditions. Mr. Borine stated that on page 2 of the staff report, staff feels that mining activities would occur year-round. His intent is that transporting and hauling would be year-round depending on market conditions. Commissioner Luke observed that there is no water within two miles of the site. Commissioner Baney asked about the noise impacts on the cattle and how that would be handled. Mr. Borine stated that in the Phase I site, there will only be one site blasted above ground. The others will likely be below ground. The noise level should not exceed the level already in that area. A brief discussion took place regarding some fencing, primarily around BLM land. Most of the land there does not have fencing in place. The cattle have free access to most of the land. Commissioner Luke asked if any of the motorcycle or ATV areas are close to the mining sites. Mr. Borine said there are a couple of staging areas and multiple trails in the area which are well-designated, and are not to be used during certain times during the year, primarily because of sage grouse. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 6 of 13 Pages Mr. Borine was asked to summarize his conclusions. He said the flat pasture was determined to be the impact area. The expanded impact area is over 5,000 acres. The ultimate time for grazing is in the spring - March, April and June. Most mining operations will take place in November through January. There was no evidence of water nearby, salting that attracts livestock, or feed supplements that would pull livestock there. Because of the timing, the possible occurrence of the cattle near the mine during operations would be unlikely and incidental. All relevant evidence to the impact area was identified and reviewed. He spent time there and drove the entire area to take an inventory. The analysis supports the conclusion that this mining will not impact ranching operations. Mr. Lovlien said that the rule does not say there can be no impact, but that a significant impact would have to be considered. Keith and Janice Nash, owners of the Evans ranch, came before the Board. Ms. Nash said that she feels staff failed to include some of the wildlife impacts. The Borine report is not very accurate and she does not think that LUBA understands grazing. It addresses the impacts to current agricultural practices. She is concerned about the noise of generators. They run year-round on public lands, in the forest in the summer and on BLM in the winter. The BLM information was from the Leslie Ranch management plan of about ten years ago. The old plan is no longer applicable as they do not have use of the land year-round because of the sage grouse. All they do is harvest dead grass and supplement with winter feeding when needed. They use the flat pasture only in November and December. They are allowed to use it less and less. The water source there does not freeze. She knows they are not supposed to talk about wildlife, but the sage grouse would be disturbed. They would be further restricted to what areas they can use as a result of mining. The impact areas are supposed to be the flat pasture, but she did not see this. The real impact is to their ranching operation. The other areas are part of other grazing allotments. They will face the same situation if there are negative impacts from mining operations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 7 of 13 Pages Motorcycles are allowed three months of the year, August through December. Doing the rock on site does create noise year-round, if only crushing and transporting. The cows will travel further if there is less snow. They figure it takes about 150 acres to support a cow. BLM is managing to save sagebrush and not grass. The noise paragraph does not apply. There were some dove hunters there at one time that disturbed the cattle near the water source, and the cattle would not return for a long time. LUBA's intent is to look at the impact to ranching operations. There is more to it than just the two issues. She feels that the operations will impact the Spencer Wells ranch negatively. She would like to submit more written testimony. Frankie Watson is a Millican property owner. She said this is an emotional issue for her. The rape, death and destruction of the Millican Valley should never have been considered sound reverberates easily in this valley. There are people, wildlife and recreation in the area. It is one of the few remaining pristine areas in Central Oregon. (She read a lengthy statement that had been entered into the record at a previous hearing.) Bill Arras has lived in Bend for 35 years. He submitted information that he acknowledge has been excluded from the final decision. In regard to cattle, he said that the local ranchers know what impacts them. There is noise and vibrations through the ground as well. He supports reasonable development including the wise use of resources, but mining in the valley would change the quality of life there even for the cows. Susan Gray of Bend submitted written testimony from Tammy and Clay Walker, who were unable to attend today. Ms. Gray said that a year ago this property was entered by the Department of Interior on the National Registry of Historic Places - concerning the pictographs. The County needs to protect this area. Commissioner Luke left the record open until Friday, July 23, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. for written testimony relating to the issues on review from LUBA. The applicant has an opportunity to respond to that testimony by Wednesday, July 285 2010 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Lovlien stated that he would only provide rebuttal to whatever is already in the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 8 of 13 Pages Commissioner Baney asked what the National Registry impacts might be. Ms. Craghead said the Board would have to determine whether that would justify widening the protection area. The LUBA remand was based on information in the record which did not include this new information. It may or may not be in Goal 5. She suggested that the applicant address this in rebuttal. Commissioner Luke stated that this was approved in most part at the time LUBA reviewed the case, under the existing rules. This was not part of the remand. Mr. Blikstad said that a site plan review will be needed if this application approved, and the applicant will have to address this type of issue then. Oral testimony was closed at this time. 5. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of First Reading by Title Only of Ordinance No. 2010-012, Amending the Comprehensive Plan to Adopt a Terrebonne Community Plan. Commissioner Baney read the preliminary statement at this time, and the hearing was opened. In regard to conflicts of interest, neither Commissioner had any to disclose. No challenges were offered. Peter Gutowsky entered the case file into the record, and did a PowerPoint presentation (a copy of which is attached). He said that Dr. Powell, a Planning Commissioner, had raised questions regarding the Plan and Statewide Planning Goals. The Board has no standing to direct how water districts are operated. The Board wanted the community to be engaged with the comprehensive plan update. There was broad support for the Terrebonne community plan. The Terrebonne domestic water system still serves the public, and was alerted to this public process. Regarding a plan amendment, there is nothing in Code that shows how to approve a legislative amendment. The County bears the burden to justify the Plan, and he feels that the Community Plan has adequate findings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 9 of 13 Pages The Planning Commissioner recommended adoption, with one refinement regarding commercial expansion area policies. Commissioner Baney asked if there was anything presented asking for more help from the County. Mr. Gutowsky said that the transportation plan may cover some aspects. Commissioner Luke stated that there has been work in the past relating to traffic calming, and some is underway through the Road Department and ODOT. Nick Lelack said he attended all the stakeholder meetings, and transportation is a big issue that will need continual work. Steve Henderson, a Terrebonne resident, said he attended all of the public meetings, and there were two other town hall meetings held that included discussions about incorporating. He is the chair of the rural advocacy committee which supports the Plan. The overwhelming opinion of the residents is to support the Plan. The County listened and the process worked well. The opposition is being lead by a group of private property owners who have a vested interested in development. Those who support the Plan are willing to compromise. Most of the land that has been used for commercial purposes have been used in that way for many years. They recognize this is a burden and the land should be considered commercial. The Plan should continue through the process. They recognized that in five years things could change. He also supports a sewer although others do not due to the lack of funding for a project this size. People like the nature of the community as it is. Kay Walters has been a resident in Terrebonne for more than 40 years. She is Chair of the Community Water District. She encouraged the Board accept the Plan, which the community has stated fits their needs. Access is always a problem and it is hoped that links can be established. A house on the corner of B Street and Highway 97. From the Water District side, they are attempting to purchase water credits, keep water rates down and handle new properties. The majority of the Water Board took a stance to keep the rates as low as possible. The people who have moved there wish to keep the community as rural as possible. They are trying to work with ODOT to address ongoing issues with Highway 97. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 10 of 13 Pages Dave Molony owns a piece of property on the west side of Highway 97 that is used commercially. It appears that the Plan will work well for everyone. There is property just north of C Street that should be able to adjust the lot line so it can be used commercially. He is not tied to this property in any way. The place behind it is not a good location because of traffic, and the small lot is basically useless. Peter Gutowsky said that lot line adjustments were discussed, and this concept was withdrawn as to being too problematic. There was good testimony on four properties and they have not heard on the other property owners that could potentially provide more input. Steve Myrin was pleased that his property was potentially included in the commercial zone. He said that the split northbound would help a lot with traffic and pedestrian use. A pedestrian bridge would be very helpful, although he realizes it would be expensive. Ms. Craghead said that some minor adjustments need to be made to the final document, so it would be a good idea to keep the written record open for a while. The written record was left open until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 2, and the written documents will be prepared for the Board to consider after that date. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of a Release of a Tetherow Phase IV Performance Bond and Acceptance of Replacement Maintenance Bond. Anthony Raguine stated that the road improvements for this phase have been completed. BANEY: Suggested Motion: Move approval of the release of the Tetherow Phase IV performance bond and acceptance of replacement maintenance bond, issued by Insco Insurance Services in the amount of $114,634. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 11 of 13 Pages The Consent Agenda and weekly accounts payable vouchers will be addressed at the afternoon work session. Consent Agenda Items 7. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meeting of July 14 • Work Session of July 14 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 911 County Service District CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Dave Kanner stated he would like to arrange for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission regarding height limitations in the La Pine Industrial Park, on August 19, 2010. Commissioner Baney said she will be out of the office probably the last half of August. She would like to have some guidance from the La Pine City Council as soon as possible since this seems to be a controversial issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 12 of 13 Pages Commissioner Luke presented a letter of support for Gilliam County and its efforts to obtain funding for rail and airport improvement projects. Commissioner Baney agreed it is appropriate to sign it. In regard to the joint meeting of Crook, Jefferson and Deschutes County scheduled for July 20, the Commissioners and Dave Kanner felt they are on track. The main topic of discussion is linking health services. The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. DATED this 19th Day of July 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dennis R. Luke, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair Tammy Baney, Comm ioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 13 of 13 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, JULY 19, 2010 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up cards provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing. 2. CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract Letter for the Full-Depth Reclamation of Camp Polk Road - Roger Olson, Road Department Suggested Motion: Move Chair Signature of an Intent to Award Contract Letter to High Desert Aggregate & Paving for the full-depth reclamation of Camp Polk Road, in the Amount of $997, 458. 3. A PUBLIC HEARING (continued from July 7) and Consideration of First and Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2010-022, Amending the Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.216 to Comply with New State Statute Provisions, Amending Code to Revive Guest Ranch Provisions, and Adding to Code a Definition of Current Employment of Land for Farm Use - Paul Blikstad, Community Development Suggested Motions: Move first and second readings, by title only, of Ordinance No. 2010-022; then move adoption of the Ordinance. 4. DELIBERATIONS and Decision on Whether Staff Properly Interpreted County Code Provisions Applicable to File #LM-10-17 and LL-10-15 (Landscape Management Site Plan and Lot Line Adjustment - Applicant: Eitel) -Kevin Harrison, Community Development Suggested Motion: Depends on deliberations. tioarct of Uommissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Pages 5. A HEARING on a LUBA Remand of the County's Decision regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use to Surface Mining (Millican - 4R Equipment) - Paul Blikstad Suggested Motion: Depends on hearing. Possibly continue to allow written testimony, depending on the time frame. 6. A HEARING and Consideration of First Reading by Title Only of Ordinance No. 2010-012, Amending the Comprehensive Plan to Adopt a Terrebonne Community Plan - Peter Gutowsky Suggested Motion: Move first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2010-012. (Second reading would take place no sooner than August 2) 7. CONSIDERATION of Approval of a Release of a Tetherow Phase IV Performance Bond and Acceptance of Replacement Maintenance Bond - Anthony Raguine Suggested Motion: Move approval of the release of the Tetherow Phase IV performance bond and acceptance of replacement maintenance bond, issued by Insco Insurance Services in the amount of $114, 634. CONSENT AGENDA 8. Approval of Minutes: Business Meeting of July 14 Work Session of July 14 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 911 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-1-1 County Service District Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 2 of 6 Pages RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 12. 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. 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, July 19 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Tuesday, July 20 1:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Commissioners from Crook and Jefferson County regarding a Regional Health Authority Proposal - Middle Sisters Building, Fairgrounds Monday, July 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, July 28 Opening Day of the Annual Fair 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Pages MondaAugust 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Tuesday, August 3 10:00 a.m. Interview Sisters Area Planning Commission Candidates (tentative) Wednesday, August 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) ThursdaAugust , u5 10:00 a.m. Interview Sisters Area Planning Commission Candidates (tentative) Wednesday, August 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, August 16 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 12 noon Regular meeting with Department Directors 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, August 18 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Mondqy, August 23 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 4 of 6 Pages Wednesday, August 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, August 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, September 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 2 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with the District Attorney 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Development 1:30 p.m. Regular Update with the Road Department Monday, September 6 Most County offices will be closed to observe Labor Day Wednesday, September 8 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 9 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Redmond City Council - Redmond Council Chambers 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Health and Human Services 3:00 p.m. COACT Meeting - COIL, Redmond Wednesday, September 15 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 5 of 6 Pages Thursday, September 16 9:00 a.m. Regular Update with the County Clerk 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Justice Mond!qy, September 20 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, September 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 23 9:00 a.m. Regular Update with the Fair & Expo Manager 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with the Assessor 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with the Commission on Children & Families 2:00 p.m. Regular Update with the Sheriff Monday, September 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, September 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 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' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, July 19, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Pages wG~JT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest Name Z 14 S a1jA_ C Date /Q 4,0 to Address cZ-16 f 7 C rM 7 7d Z, E-mail address S _ qr d ❑ In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? rx Yes R No ~J-c~s co ~U { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest i~ Ile, m Je` o ~ti~ Date,-A'A 1j 2~ 1 I ( d l Name Address Phone #s 51f / _56~o _ 7 R~_3 E-mail address , Ue~, k n 4- 11,111 , ~ In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? r-71 es ❑ No REQUEST TO SPEAK n4 r-,\) zf !5 4_-_ W L-2 (6,t,_S AL A Phone #s (i`J),a ..1 o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest (J-~cti.~ e t~ DateJ~..~.~. Name Address Phone #s - - ~ 7 3 le-14 E-mail address F1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? yes ,,~Opposed No G~~-tES coG o 2{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest- Date 7 fj~ r Name _Z Address c~2 5- IM Phone #s~ E-mail address In Favor F_~ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F~ Yes No -TES ,o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest _ ; f-AIA0,00*14 4- Date Name, Address & 1 S6 o 6astie_r, Z Phone #s sy/= 32?,.? - /6 e/ u Iv)3 n E-mail address ❑ In FavorNeutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? XYes ❑ No Z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest V -,K P, , . A410 Date 7-11 -/0 Name 0o t~ L, o v~, j G-,,/ Address Po )o V x 8 ss )3,W h of 7-7 Oq Phone #s 5gz - 11 3 3 / E-mail address ra/ ewf /a 6 r?v In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided F-1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No G~J"ses co` a 2~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest p,- S Date Name Address /y7To ( j-- D~ 9y7~i Phone #s 4~,/6 - 2 ~/s- 7 E-mail address 0 In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? R Yes ❑ Opposed No G~v-res L { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest w µg+Je Date 7p" Name Address 144"" ' . gj(.~. ~w. rro (gr; qx,~,t y Vi Phone #s 't . E-mail address 31~_c;~~ r Gr In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided 1,41 Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ Opposed ❑ No 0 w-rES c~ _ a { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest - Date / Name Address l Phone #s E-mail address In Favor e_rS ~fs o U r e te_ rDa_1QVy) 0 e-1 ot ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ U { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest rri cv, Date Name C ).n Address Phone #s E-mail ad ❑ In Favor V\O a ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No TF~ n Z~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ~Date m AVWX~ Name Addres Phone #s I R E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F~ Yes No ^eS-}-iw•~ PvU~ ~i~~ l~l~ l~J'~fi -7 1-7 5 J_. QOVS V, lAd *07 WA_ 1IR-Siq ~ W 7- Or-~~ q-_ 4 ~ PAW Gl ~?✓/"a PE- F-! i N /A f 1 Date: July 18, 2010 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Minerva Soucie, Paiute Elder/Bums Paiute Tribe RE: Second hearing on LUBA-Surface Mining/Millican Valley Dear Commissioners I am a Tribal Elder of the Burns Paiute Tribe; I have visited the pictograph site on the Walker property since I was a little girl with my parents, who took us to the site in the 1950's. We visited the site long before the fence was built along Hwy 20, our parents told my brother and sisters that it was a place of reverence and was to be respected while there. In later years I have been there with my own children to tell them about how special the area was. When prayers were said, it was quiet, except for the sounds of nature and an occasional vehicle traveling on Hwy 20. This is what they meant, when they meant reverence of the area. I have been following the events in the paper and have supported the protection of the site all of the way to having it listed on the Nation Register of Historic Places. I was excited when the property was listed and appeared on the papers of Indian Country Today, on August 29, 2009. My thought at that time was now it is protected from all activities. So today, I am writing in regards to the continuing request to turn the adjacent property within a half-mile from the Walker property into a surface mining operation. I do not think that any buffers from the mining operation, or stopping operations when Native people who visit the site for religious purposes as what was suggested in your report is not what is meant by reverence of the site. As an elder, I may stop there several times a week on my travels to Central Oregon, will that mean that the mining operations will cease for the day, so I am not covered in dust and it is quiet? I think not, due to the economics associated with the mining operations. Since it has been listed on the Register of Historic Place, I would think that the County would look at this as being a special designation for Central Oregon and not allow a surface mining operation to be placed within a half mile of the pictograph site. Please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience if you have any questions Sincerely, ✓VGinerva e~oucie Enrolled Paiute Elder Burns Paiute Tribe minervasoucie@centurvtel.net RF 1 s 1-2--20-1 UWS IOUN 4 - l -s' l fe) Ozu LXJ - (Jje Are-/ - Ore) lo~l 10e e j _ 7 o u C, 't IA -s 1v q L) e4P,V ~e c a r- I e, 3 t..C' t7 Lup - od e-o-c~44e-- i D y CDD } JUN J 5- 2010 if f - L=~,,; SOY=.;iti.~--~-._=~J I~l Q(~ PJL QY ~ 1]J l 4~~.~ U . _ Ar. e~~! lad cc) - - oe-n ~ Pte(' - - , l P~ its ~ e e V - C c P 1 i 942 ~ W C2P. f MU ~ h~-~~ 121 ~P Icx , ~ ~ 7 - G - cvi- _ - t F lit -q- ~ - - - - --~-b1 - -t - - - -c-A-Al Oe c-0 /Z Q, i I i I i i I I - - ---2,~64! (wr wo e out i i I Introduction This is a hearing on a Remand Order from the Land Use Board of Appeals regarding the Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications (PA-04-8, ZC-04-6) submitted by 4-R Equipment. The applicant has requested approval of a plan amendment to add the subject property to the County's Goal 5 surface mining inventory of mineral and aggregate resources, and a zone change to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use - Horse Ridge subzone, to Surface Mining. These applications were previously considered and approved by the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") by the written decisions dated December 27, 2006. That decision was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"), which remanded the decision back to the County. The BOCC issued a second decision on October 1, 2008, which was also appealed to LUBA. LUBA issued a final decision and order dated September 22, 2009, remanding the County's decision back to the County. The applicant has, by a letter received by the County on June 17, 2010, requested that the County commence the remand hearing process. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the procedures established under Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, and is being heard de novo before the Board, but limited to the issues that LUBA found as assignments of error in their final opinion and order. Burden of proof and Applicable criteria The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval sought. The standards applicable to the applications are listed on the previously issued Board decision. 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 proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Hearings Procedure The procedures applicable to this Commissioners will hear testimony, evidence and information submitted decision. The record as developed hearing. hearing provide that the Board of County receive evidence and consider the testimony, into the record, and will be the basis for their to this point is available for public review at this Order of Presentation The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a staff report of the prior proceedings and the issues raised by LUBA. The applicant will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony and evidence. Proponents of the appeal will then be given a chance to testify. When all other proponents have testified, opponents will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. After both proponents and opponents have testified, the applicant will be allowed to present rebuttal testimony, but may not present new evidence. At the Board's discretion, if the applicant presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. A witness who wishes, during that witness' testimony, however, to ask a question of a previous witness, may direct the question to the Chair. If a person has already testified but wishes to ask a question of a subsequent witness, that person may also direct the question to the Chair after all other witnesses have testified, but prior to the proponent's rebuttal. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. Continuances: The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a date certain or leave the written record open. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the Board shall establish the time period for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and for additional for response to the evidence received while the record was held open. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed time after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the application. Pre-hearing Contacts. Biases. Conflicts of Interests 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. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex-parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Terrebonne Community Plan Public Hearing July 19, 2010 This is a public hearing on Ordinance 2010-012, File Number PA-10-2. Initiated by Deschutes County, the proposal amends the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, DCC Chapter 23.40.30, Terrebonne Rural Community, to establish a Community Plan for Terrebonne. The updated goals and policies provide a planning guide to decision making in regard to land use, capital improvements and physical development in Terrebonne during the next 20 years (2010 - 2030). The Board of County Commissioners will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today, contiriue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Board with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any Commissioner for conflict of interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Commissioner be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth any information that may be perceived as a conflict of interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT T" 3 5 n ~h~. L ¢ Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) N ch v LO CO ti 00 71 0 I a fV 0 ~ _ y C 0. O L 1 - t S~ Z AMU -A QS U W Z L S ~ S WL I 0 ' v w D, ti Y1 f 1 z W~ za z O 1-i Ll n i . I - L 7 1-T 13 Hi~ - i = 1 I 1 I~, i J II ~ II P I_ ~I i? Pu b U'c Fa c'Uties R IAA Servibcts Terrebonne is served by four special districts: 1) Terrebonne Domestic Water District; 2) Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #I; 3) Redmond School District; and, 4) Central Oregon Irrigation District. Terrebonne public facilities and services are described below in greater detail. Domestic Water The Terrebonne Domestic Water District (Water District) is a municipal district that currently serves approximately 525 residences and 25 businesses located in the densely populated areas of Terrebonne, including the old Hillman Plat and Angus Acres Subdivision. The Water District currently utilizes three wells. Groundwater beneath Terrebonne does not currently exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant limits. The Oregon Public Health Division and Deschutes County therefore do not require the Water District to treat its water supply. The Water District is however, required to purchase groundwater mitigation credits for its water supply because the Oregon Water Resources Department identifies Terrebonne as a groundwater critical area. Deschutes County and the Water District have a strong track record for coordinating land use. Last decade, the Water District's board of directors recognized the importance of improving their antiquated water system both for fire protection and domestic use. State law requires that Deschutes County enter into an agreement with the Water District for coordinated review and administration of land use in the their service area (OAR Chapter 660-22, Unincorporated Communities). Deschutes County approved a Community Development Block Grant and state technical assistance grant with the Water District's support in 1993 to develop an updated water system master plan for a 25-year planning horizon. The Water District, with assistance from Deschutes County also received an Oregon Economic Development grant in 1997 to construct priority one improvements to their water system. Two years later the Water District received a loan package to construct further improvements. Terrebonne residents living outside the Water District rely on private domestic wells for drinking water. State law, ORS 537.54 exempts private wells as long as domestic consumption is less than 15,000 gallons per day and irrigation of a lawn or noncommercial garden is less than one-half acre. TERREBONNE COMMUNITY PLAN - 2010 TO 2030 12 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL IDESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL RECORDS rt ~~~~C CLERK W UQ 01/26/2005 04:15:13 PM BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Approving the Annexation of C.B. Foss Annexation into the Terrebonne Domestic Water District ORDER NO. 2005-002 WHEREAS, a petition requesting annexation of territory into the Terrebonne Domestic Water District was duly filed with the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County on December 14, 2004, and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Assessor's Office has verified that the annexation petition was signed by the the real property owner within the areas to be annexed, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 26, 2005, to hear the petition and any objections thereto, and to determine whether, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, applicable Land Conservation and Development Goals and the criteria prescribed by ORS 199.462 and 198.805, the affected areas would be benefited by annexations of said territory into the Terrebonne Domestic Water District, and WHEREAS, in its preliminary review, the Oregon Department of Revenue rejected the legal description submitted by the petitioners and the petitioners have since submitted a corrected legal description; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. That the Foss petition for annexation into the Terrebonne Domestic Water District attached to and referenced in Order No. 2004-107 is hereby incorporated by reference and is approved. Section 2. That the boundaries of the territory annexed to the said district are as set forth in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map marked Exhibit "B" of the Foss petition and as set forth, and shall be known as the "C.B. Foss Annexation." Section 3. That the applicable land use criteria pertinent to the proposed Annexations, the facts found by the Board and the reasons why the Board believes those facts to bring the proposal within the requirements of the applicable land use criteria are described in Exhibit "C," attached to the petition hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 4. That the territory included in the Foss Annexation is declared to be annexed into the Terrebonne Domestic Water District as of the date of this Order. Section 5. That after signature, the Board Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to the Oregon Department of Revenue, Oregon Secretary of State Archives Division, Deschutes County Assessor's Office, and the Terrebonne Domestic Water District. Page 1 of 2 - ORDER NO. 2005-002 (1/26/05) Section 6. The purpose of this District is to provide fire protection services within the District. DATED this 26th day of January, 2005. DATED: January 26, 2005. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Page 2 of 2 - ORDER NO. 2005-002 (1/26/05) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES CO Y, OREGON Tom DeWolf Chai !2ae . aly, Co Toner i 1 C Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner EXHIBIT "A" Parcel 1 of Partition Plat No. 2004-35, Deschutes County, Oregon. Exhibit "A" - Order No. 2005-002 (01/26/05)5 EXHIBIT "B" W° e~ ~S C^ EXHIBIT "C" Z~ Community Development Department O VA A 4 Planning Division Building Safely Division Environmental Health Division 11 >A A 117 NW Lafayette Avenue • Bend, Oregon • 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 • FAX (541) 385-1764 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 16, 2004 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ TO: Laurie Kendall, Legal Assistant, County Legal Counsel FROM: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner 6F) RE: Annexation to Terrebonne Domestric Water District, C.B. Foss Annexation, Your file no. 16-599 The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, which is acknowledged to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals, encourages the formation of special service districts to serve rural needs. Under the Public Facilities and Services section of the County Comprehensive Plan, Section 23.68.020, Policies, is the following general policy: e. Deschutes County shall encourage the formation of special service districts to serve rural needs rather than becoming involved with serving those needs. The County will foster coordination and mutual planning between the County, special districts, utility companies and service corporations. This shall include common trenching where appropriate. Additionally, the Terrebonne Rural Community Plan Policies lists the following policies under section 23.28.010(C)(2)(b): 4. New uses or expansion of existing uses requiring land use approval in the Terrebonne Domestic Water District service area shall be approved only upon confirmation from the District that the District can provide water for domestic or commercial uses to the property. 5. Deschutes County shall encourage all development in the District service area to connect to the Terrebonne Domestic Water District water system. It is clear that a reliable and safe water system is an important aspect of rural development, as evidenced by the above policies and the overall comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the proposed annexation to the Terrebonne Domestic Water District is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning Goals. Exhibit "C" - Order No. 2005-002 (01/26/05)5 Quality Services Performed with Pride TES co A December 16, 2004 County Clerk's Office Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 Fax (541) 383-4424 Recording (541) 388-6549 Elections (541) 388-6547 www.co.deschutes.or.us To: Deschutes County Legal Department From: Nancy Blankenship, Deschutes County Clerk Re: Petition to Annex property to Terrebonne Domestic Water District (CB Foss) Clerk's Certification Attached is the certification I received from the Assessor's office for ownership verification on the CB Foss annexation petition. Thank you! ~JTES` c0 0 ~ December 16, 2004 Nancy Blankenship Deschutes County Clerk Assessor's Office Scot Langton, Assessor 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6508 - Fax (541) 330-4629 www. co. deschutes. or. us Re: Petition for Annexation in to Terrebonne Domestic Water District - Foss Please be advised that the attached petition meets the requirements of ORS 198.755 and 198.765. Sincerely, e~gdrto s, Chierapper, DeschuLs-Bounty, Oregon ~JTES c Count Clerks Office Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk ~v 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 Fax (541) 383-4424 Recording (541) 388-6549 Elections (541) 388-6547 December 15, 2004 www.co.deschutes.or.us To: Greg Bates, Deschutes County Assessor's office From: Nancy Blankenship, Deschutes County Cler Re: Petition for Annexation in to Terrebonne Domestic Water District - CB Foss Attached is a copy of the CB Foss petition submitted to annex to the Terrebonne Domestic Water District. Please verify that the person(s) who signed the petition(s) are landowners in the area proposed for annexation. I will need a certification pursuant to ORS 198.755 and 198.765. Please return your certificate to my office. Thank you! Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 617-4748 - www.deschutes.org Laurie Craghead -;U- Assistant Legal Counsel 'M 388-6593 TO: Nancy Blankenship, Deschutes County Clerk DATE: December 14, 2004 RE: Foss Petition for Annexation into FILE NO.: 16-599 Terrebonne Domestic Water District Enclosed is the petition from C.B. Foss along with the original signature page for annexation in the Terrebonne Domestic Water District for your certification. Thank you. Enclosures SEL 704 REV S/14/93 SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMATION OR REORGANIZATION ❑ FORMATION ANNEXATION ❑ WITHDRAWAL F-] DISSOLUTION rlrte , mc/ District ORS 198.775 No. of precincts in district ® $ per precinct = $ (maximum of $10,000) total deposit PERSONS/ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING ANY PART OF CAS URITY DEPOSIT 1. NAME (PRINT)-3 b(yt- Cl fLs j SIGNA RESIDENCE ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFR0RENT) 0. zh X 19 L co CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE - CAI AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION/ VALUE OF SECURED DEPOSIT KIND OF CONTRIBUTION:* CASH ❑ BOND ❑ OTHER SECURITY DEPOSIT NAME (PRINT) RESIDENCE ADDRESS SIGNATURE MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION/VALUE OF SECURED DEPOSIT KIND OF CONTRIBUTION:* ❑ CASH ❑ BOND ❑ 3. NAME (PRINT) RESIDENCE ADDRESS KIND OF CONTRIBUTION:* ❑ CAS's SIGNATURE MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION/VALUE OF SECURED DEPOSIT ❑ BOND ❑ OTHER SECURITY DEPOSIT CHIEF PETITIONERS I/we hereby declare ifAe costs. of the attempted formation, annexation, withdrawal, or dissolution of :~P MC t1 Vkk district exceed the deposit, I/we will pay to the county treasurer the amount of the excess costs (ORS 195.775). 1. NAME (PRINT) RESIDENCE ADDRESS (I D iv . MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) t~ x CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE NAME (PRINT) RESIDENCE ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE NAME (PRINT) RESIDENCE ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE OTHER SECURITY DEPOSIT SIGNATURE U,~ DATE 395 DAY TELEPHONE 5-R - SIGNATURE DATE DAY TELEPHONE SIGNATURE DATE DAY TELEPHONE rovide additional description of security deposit on reverse or separate sheets. Additional contributors maybe Listed on separate sheets and attached. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY STATE OF OREGON In re: ) PETITION TO ANNEX ) PROPERTY TO TERREBONNE ) DOMESTIC WATER DISTRICT ) PURSUANT TO ORS 198.850 ) WITHOUT ELECTION ) Comes now the undersigned legal owners of the real property lying adjacent to the boundary of the Terrebonne Domestic Water District and pursuant to ORS 198.850 does hereby petition the Deschutes County Commissioner to annex to the Terrebonne Domestic Water District the following described real property in Deschutes County to wit: 66.7+ acres located between highway 97 and the Burlington Northern Railroad and North of H Street; on the North %2 of the NE 1/4 of section 16 South, Range 13 W.M in Deschutes County, Oregon aka Tax lot 100. 2 That the Terrebonne Domestic Water is a public entity existing pursuant to ORS Chapter 264 and exists in Deschutes County, State of Oregon. That the District Board of Directors at its regular Board of Directors meeting held on November 9, 2004, adopted a resolution consenting to, approving and supporting the annexation of the above described property to Terrebonne Domestic Water District, a copy of said resolution is attached to this petition and marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof as though wholly PAGE 1 PETITION TO ANNEX PROPERTY (Teri ebonne Water Dist.) GAWP51 \RLB\TERREBON\I 12303 PetitionAnnexProp.wpd6k) BRYANT, EMERSON & FITCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 888 WEST EVERGREEN AVENUE PO. BOX 457 REDMOND. OREGON 97756-0103 TELEPHONE (541) 548-2151 FAX (541) 548-1895 incorporated herein. 3 Wherefore undersigned petition that the Deschutes County Commissioner to set a public hearing to consider this petition and provide notice to all as required by ORS 198.857 (3)(4). Dated this 2 V day of 12004. C.B. Foss M a✓>-1 Property Owner The Terrebonne Domestic Water District does hereby approve the filling of this petition: TBERE,BOITE OME IC WATER DISTRICT Title , Date PAGE 2 PETITION TO ANNEX PROPERTY (Terrebonne Water Dist.) G:\WP51\RLB\TERREBON\l ] 2303PetitionAnnexProp.wpdQk) BRYANT, EMERSON & FITCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 888 WEST EVERGREEN AVENUE PO. BOX 457 REDMOND, OREGON 97756-0103 TELEPHONE (541) 548-2151 FAX (541) 548-1895 CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION Comes now the undersigned secretary of the Terrebonne Domestic Water District and hereby certifies that the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Terrebonne Domestic Water District at its regular meeting on Tuesday, November 9, 2004. BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that Terrebonne Domestic Water District, an Oregon corporation, does hereby consent, approve and support the annexation of the following described property to wit: 66.7+ acres located between highway 97 and the Burlington Northern Railroad and North of H Street; on the North % on the NE 1/4 of section 16 South, Range 13 East W.M in Deschutes County, Oregon aka Tax lot 100. into the Terrebonne Domestic Water District; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Terrebonne Domestic Water District Board support a petition to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners for annexation of the above described property to the Terrebonne Domestic Water District by the owner of the property; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman and Secretary are hereby authorized on behalf of the Terrebonne Domestic Water District Board to endorse the Terrebonne Domestic Water District approval on the petition for annexation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Board is further authorized to execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate this resolution. Dated this day of , 2004. R.R]X$O ~DQMES TIC W C~R DISTRICT By Dy Secretary PAGE 1 CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION - EXHIBIT A G:\WP51\RLB\TERREBOMI 12303PetitionAnnexProp.Exh A.wpdok) BRYANT, EMERSON & FITCH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 888 WEST EVERGREEN AVENUE P.O. BOX 457 REDMOND, OREGON 97756-0103 TELEPHONE (541) 548-2151 FAX (541) 548-1895 December 9, 2004 HAND DELIVERED LAURIE CRAGHEAD DESCHUTES COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL 1300 NW WALL STREET BEND, OR 97701 RE: Additional Documentation for the Foss Annexation Application to the Terrebonne Domestic Water District i Dear Ms. Craghead: The purpose of this letter is to advise that the property described in the Petition to Annex Property to Terrebonne Domestic Water District Pursuant to ORS 198.850 Without Election which I executed on November 24, 2004, is uninhabited. Please add this letter to the Petition to conform with ORS 198.750(f). Thank you, C.B. Foss o , Q - Property Owner CO W M Z 3 W r Z O U NN o ♦W ~H H ~ U tp N W Z ~ 0 U W N 8 B - 1 lL1 ~ h H s ~ y t~ s n o . - ray ~ ~~m n t~ ~ L _ r t ~ N a _ _ LD w~ m A rz im ~J sz~ SI fl Im ~x W M Z .w 0162-60%rX Chapter 23.28 3 (01/2002) Map Cl: Terrebonne Domestic Water District Page l of l Commissioners, FYI. Regarding this email, please don't respond to all of your colleagues since it could lead to a violation of public meetings law. We certainly can continue this discussion with the full PC at your next meeting on July 22. For those interested in testifying on the Terrebonne Community Plan, the Board public hearing is scheduled for July 19 at 10:00 a.m. Last Thursday, Planning Commissioners wanted to know Deschutes County's land use role/authority in circumstances where property owners, interested in development, reside in the Terrebonne or Laidlaw Water Districts. Based on my conversation with Laurie Craghead, Assistant Legal Counsel, both district are recognized as municipal corporations just like a city but with limited authority and responsibility. Water companies, such as Avion, are a different entity altogether. Water district governing bodies (board of commissioners) are elected by the electors within their boundaries and those governing bodies determine rates and type and extent of facilities. Because districts are separate governmental entities, the county has no authority over the water districts as to how they provide water to property within their districts. Deschutes County is therefore, legally obligated to defer to these districts during a land use entitlement process for water service requirements, since those districts have the authority for determining how its patrons receive water. Both districts are subject to ORS 451, http_://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/_451.html. Related draft Community Plan policies are noted below: Terrebonne Water District * Development requiring land use approval, located in the Terrebonne Domestic Water District service area shall be approved only upon confirmation from the District that the they can provide water to the property. * Encourage all development in the Terrebonne Domestic Water District service area to connect to their water system. Laidlaw Water District * Coordinate development within the Laidlaw Water District to determine if connection to its water system is required. Peter Peter Gutowsky, AICP Principal Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 ph# (541)385-1709 fax# (541)385-1764 Web: www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd 7/14/2010 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend Oregon 97701 Re: Terrebonne Community Plan 2010-2030 14 July 2010 You will be reviewing the Terrebonne Community Plan as part of the 2010 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update at your regular meeting on July 19th. While there are a number of issues that received considerable testimony and attention at the Planning Commission hearings and subsequent work sessions, the policies related to Water Policy did not. There were several questions that were raised but not resolved, from my perspective, before the plan was forwarded to you. Since I do not feel that I have done "due diligence" in my role as a planning commissioner with some of those policies as presented, even after receiving some additional clarification, I raise the concerns again for your deliberation. I am copying this letter to the Planning Staff, anticipating that, if needed, they will be able provide additional information to facilitate your decision about policy inclusion or modification. The plan text on water is: Domestic water The Terrebonne Domestic Water District (Water District) is a private company that currently serves approximately 525 residences and 25 businesses located in:the'densely populated areas of Terrebonne, including the old Hillman Plat and Angus Acres Subdivision., The Water District currently utilizes three wells. Groundwater beneath. Termbonne doei, not exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant, limits. The Omgoh;Public Health Division and Deschutes County therefore do not require the Water District to treat its water supply. The Water District is however, required to purchase: groundwater mitigation credits for its water supply because the Oregon Water Resources Department identifies Terrebonne as a groundwater critical area Deschutes County and the Water District have a strong track mcdrd for coordinating land use. Last decade, the Water Districts board of directors recognized the importance of improving their antiquated water system both for fire protection and domestic use. State law requires that Deschutes County (OAR Chapter 660-2t Unincorporated Communities) enter into an agreement with the Water District for coordinated review and administration of land use in the their service area. Deschutes County approved i Community Development Block Grant and state technical assistance, grant with the Water '-Districts support in 1993 to develop an updated water system master plan, spanning a 25-year planning horizon. The Water District; with assistance from Deschutes County also received an Oregon Economic Development grant in 1997 to construct"prr' rty one improvements to their water system. Two years later the Water District received ban packiYe to construct further improvements. Terrebmine residents living outside the Water District rely on private domestic wells for drinking water. State law, ORS 537.54 exempts private wells as long as domestic consumption is less than 115,000 gallons per day and irrigation of a lawn or noncommercial garden is less than one-half acre. And the policies: Water Facility Policies 3. The Terrebonne Domestic Water District 1995 Water System Master,Plan serves as the public facility plan for water supply in Terrebonne. 4. All commercial development or development including sprinkler system shall be reviewed by the Terrebonne Domestic Water District. S. Development requiring land use approval, located in the Terrebonne Domestic Water District service area shall be approved only upon confirmation from the District that the they can provide water to the property. 6. Support improvement of the community water system to meet health and safety needs of Terrebonne residents. 7. Maintain a coordination agreement, consistent with ORS Chapter 195 and OAR 660-22- 050(2)(c) for Deschutes_Couuty and the Terrebonne Domestic Water District 8. Encourage all development in the Terrebome Domestic Water District service area to connect to their watei>system. For me, factors contributing to unresolved issues include: o While it was confirmed that there is Terrebonne Domestic Water District Master Plan, the County did not have a copy of it for review. There was no confirmation that the plan has been updated since 1995, nor were any maps presented showing the boundaries of the district. Policy 3 indicates that this Master Plan is the public facility plan for water in Terrebonne. Oregon DHS lists two water districts in Terrebonne, both districts being under the default oversight of the County. The Circle C system is not mentioned in the plan text; it may lie outside of the Terrebonne Unincorporated Community boundary, and it received little note in the deliberation process. JZUpAtiai R,en.SewsASPJha ws r.,.,....,.,.SS P9.10.{.zA.4L A!x4HaalJn!a M4100060 TERRKE E DOME C WATER DLS JR CIAMM m: COMMUN![Y Cmmcn DOUGh UGHLLY ITOee: Sq t.3c8.2y2] 31 Cnoury; DESCNUTL~S TERRERO.NNR, OR MW A-t ,S-AC R-I-_ PoPUlaHau: 1,400 Num6ereJCmm"loue 360 ,P-ftR PerinB:Jmuarylm DacmR n ReR,W S AIlRtT: DESCHUTFS COUNTY CsxJRklJ (JBaynlmSaJ Omer Typr. LOCAL GOVRRNJ4E?N'f RequvM: Y I.bauep 81: MIA DI ln~um eLSe: 1 Tm~cm clew: Nom APFr MtWd { Wr Mo4tllm Plrn: No S W A Y Filveum PnEOwmac Rrqu6ed: No wvo eler ~,m[: m LaC Survey Date: Ju130, 2009 R3 F ~ N-...e ~1(w,!i.t5 Actleln Stoma Avat6; i.n.n.en W 6mn Somvs Trm S-o)neJbu:.PV*J~. inesczJm sR veto n as wl]!. n (OESCt 7, ac-wo wm4. e. nvl w, s ~ A ~ cW r.. w cwem FacRW Ne;;~ R Ty>~(gq~ . _ CaeovCOeMSUR Ttattteml Oltka3lve P➢[3'ts.[ D1te.BeQDsC II109 Jun 22, 2010 Dave C.n - Iun 22, 2010 zooa 6ep ls,zro9 sm is 20o'J Jwo1.2roR 2006 Jun 29 2007 Jwol.20oe J 29 200) . un . C_eas CaasaYa Aeemi _ B{SRLA $AWYRSnRD w.cR w.l Ye Fuel 2008 2001 21106 toJUl41,c9!m RM----- M511 _c1.ut19 Y.5.4D.lwY_42 ML?Hwnx I)HS fluickRR_ Ai%~kn. ORi10086J CJRCLECD ROVEOtBNT DL IC CJM0 a*M: COJNIUNFFY Caveat JEANERE BONDSTEEL Itl9tl NW OA VmSON WY PhmcJdl A103146 TF.RREBO"E.OR 91760 County; DESCHUTES AtlAky Stee": ACT[YE - RL ,v PnpuWletn 130 Nvm6er of CmnMlt~ 72 Opalb{ Perim: JNluazy 1 m DwvroCC11 ReCU-2 ASeuty: DPSCHUiP3 COUNTY C Saw ID-M[DJ Omer TJ -LOCALGOVERNJ. W R-mh Y I.is id Ey: N/A Ditaipu0m class: S Trermralwau: Nom Apptavad Dtin4letQ Waty Ptonnbe Pbm: No S W R A u Y F0lntion EvOwa®mt Requi,N: No vttao a r tae®,m ea I,AC Survey UNe: JuI Ze, X07 S.~"as .W,41Jme AuNin SUn;sl AvaRa6 mW1 SArtNIhK_P31R42 uFI¢LO (WRZ.La I.S.LA i) SaGM wl. 2 WW Y. snC.w verve. es pJ"ZSaJ eer,.-, Su4@ - FKE~`_Mme TleamRni.Pe6eeel vna c:W Ye< iryamRRl_D4ffiDye R l d ts ra F9LYN[ Dale 2009 Apr ZO. Al l O Jl%IB MRCeatMetl Ap[ 10.2010 200"/ AFr01.2006 AW 01.2008 20tH Apr".1007 Apr 27.2W7 C-IC, , AUttml9ao-- y A-q OrdbaaetRtnhM Qldlwpa.51ARD ASRRSR7yN Yea Final 2008 2002 21%10 Neither district is under the purview of the PUC. http://www.puc.state.or.us/PUC/water/regcos.pdf While there was substantiation of problems with septic drainage based on geological formations on the west side of Hwy 97 in Terrebonne, there was no testimony indicating that underground aquifers were insufficient for community water supplies. Testimony was received from landowners who have irrigation rights and who expressed the wish that their property might be considered for future development. Their water rights might serve as mitigation for an additional water source in the area. Policy 5 requires all development within the Terrebonne Domestic Water District boundary requiring land use action be subject to the District's ability to provide water; Policy 8 suggests all development within those boundaries be "encouraged" to use the District's system. These policies are, reportedly, carryovers from the last plan update and reflect the County's interpretation of its relationship to the District under provisions of ORS 451. Although the number of patrons falls below many of the stated minimums, other statutes or rules may have impact as well; OAR 333 reflects responsibilities of the District to DHS with changes in the water facilities; OAR 660-011 addresses the relationship between rural land densities and water services; OAR 660-022 addresses when a Community Facility Plan is required and its components. While ORS 451 seems to provide the ability for a district to be involved in land use issues, there seems to be additional criteria that the district must meet to do so. I do not recall any evidence that the Terrebonne Domestic Water District meets those criteria. ORS 264 may allow a domestic water district to require hookups within its boundaries or exercise rights of eminent domain inside and outside of its boundaries, but there was no information suggesting that ORS 264 governs the Terrebonne District. While water districts seem to be accorded planning authority for water and drainage issues, I do not find Document Reproduces Poorll (Archived) any requirement in my reading of any of the mentioned OARs or ORSs that the County defer its land use planning authority to a water district. The District is not subject to PUC's refusal of service provisions. Testimony was received and The Bulletin was noted to have published an article on 3/14/20 10 (http://www.bendbuiletin.com/apps/Rbcs.dll/article)AID=120 1 003 1 4/NEWS0107/3140398) suggesting that views of some Terrebonne Domestic Water District Board members did not facilitate meaningful planning dialogues within the community. 451350 Powers of dktrlet under OAS 451.410 m 451.610. For the purpose ofcarrymg out the powers granted to the district under other provisions of ORS 431.410 to 451.610, the district may: (1) Supervise, manage, control. operate and maintain service fcilitip. (2) Compel at reaidenb and property owners in a district b connect clan property, betant and structures requiring sewage disposed or surt9ce drainage with adjacent sewers or other sewage or drainage facilities in the district (3) Acquire by purchase, gift, devrm, coed-m- proceedings or by troy other mean., such real and personal property and rights of way. either within or without the county, as in the judgment ofine governing body ofthe district me neceswy or proper in the exereiae of the powers ofthe dntricr, and ro pay nsr and hold the same. (4) Make and accept contracts, deeds, retire and docum:ob which, in ttjWgreent ofthe governing body of the limier, rte necessary or proper in the exercise of the powers of the district (5) Employ and pay --try .Bans, employ- and aaxisona (6) Construct service facilities in and on arty public srxt highway or road and fm this puryoa<ems upon the stmt highway or road, make a0 necessary and props exea-d-s, and thaea0cr restore the seem, highway or mad to its proper condition. However, the cancers ofthe appmpriua city, county m sure emthoritks, ss the cane may e, 'ban r%be obtained and the Conditions of such cmaent complied with. (7) E.-kc the authority vested in -,I. under ORS 549.710 to 549.990. (8) Exercise the amboriN greeted m domestic water supply dis0icb under ORS 264.306 b 264.330. (9) Adopt an= and surface water management phua, programs and regulations reLeting to the quality and gtaatiry of trash waters and mnduc[ water quality srndim (10) Do my act necessary m proper m the coa>pbate execise and efat of any of its powers under ORS 451.410 to 451.610. [1955 c.685 § 15: 1963 e.513 §20; 1965 c305 § 1; 1973 c.785 §22; 1989 x374 §61 45135S Dbtrlcla formed to provide comprebeaslve planning services; dopd.. of land afe pans; advbaty eommluees. (1) County service dim.. for the pu> service n districts mmpnehcesive planning for land use and public acidmes f a district to the county may be found in the manner provided by ORS 451.410 m 45).610 fm establishing county for other punposca (2) A district formed m pro vide comprehensive planning may, re accordance with ORS chapter 215, adapt comprehensive plans f Lend use and public fscilitxs within the district The diaaict aha0 be subject n ORS 451.120 m 451.140, 451.485 and 451.550 to 451.560. The activities of the dimict may be fimoced by my method authorized by ORS 451.490 and 451,520 in 451.547. Plana adopted by the district may be cnimecd as provided by ORS 451.130. (3) The dlemkt governing body .bell appoint an ad-my committee ofrot less them 11 members who me electors resident in the district or owners of land in the district Th. commie,hall advise the governing body in currying out the provisions of this section. It shag roce, with the governing body at the times and places determined by the committee and governing body jointly. [1971 ..674 §4; 1993.792 §261 660.011-0065 Water Service to Rural Larde (I) As used in this nab, tmden the context requite, otherwise: (a) *Establishment' means the auction of a new weer system and all associated physical components, including systems provided by public or private entities; (b)'13xension of a water sysem• m eam to extension of a pipe, conduit, pipeline, main, or other physical component from or in an existing water system in order in provide service in a use that was not served by the system- de applicable dam of this Wile, regardless of whether the use is inside the service boundaries of the public or private service provider. (c)' Water system' shall have rite same meaning m provided in Goa( I I, and includes a0 pipe, conduit. pipelne, rains, mother physical components of stab a system. (2) Consistent with Goal 11, local land use regulations applicable to lands that arc outside urban growth boundaries and onincotpomed community, boundaries shag WC (a) Allow an increase In a base density in a residential zow due to the availability of service from a water system; (b) Allow a higher density for residential development served by a water system than would be andtodzed without such service; or (c) Allow an increase in the allowable density of residential development clue in the presence, establishment, or extension of a water system. (3) Applicable provisions of this role, railer then conflicting provisions of local acknowledged zoning ordinances, shall immediately apply to local land use decision filed subsequent in the effective date of this rule. [ED. VOTE: The goal referenced in this role is available nom the agency.) Sect. Auth: ORS 183.4ORS l97 Sala. InWleneemed: ORS 197.712 Hier, LCDD 4.1998, f. & art. Cf. 7-28-98 660.0224050 Community Public Facility Paps (1) In coosdinstion with special districts, counties shall adopt public facility pram mating the requirements of OAR 660. division 11, and include them in the Comprehensive plan for ur-onpomted commum es over 2,5W in population. A community public facility plan addressing sewer and water is required if the eminemporemd community Is designed as an urban unincorporated community under OAR 660-022-0010 and 660-022-0020. For all communities, a server and water community public facility, plan is required if: (a) Existing sewer or water facilities am insufficient for current reeds, or me projected in become insufficient due to physical conditions, financial cburmsumets or changing state or federal standards; or (b) The plan for the unincorporated community provides for an mmunt, type or density, of additional growth or infill that cannot be adequately served with individual water or sanitary, systems or by existing community facilities and services; or (c) The Community miles on groundwater and is within a groundwater limited or groundwater units) area as identified by tho Oregon Department of Water Resources; or (d) Land in the community has been decLered a heahh hazard or has a history of failing septic systems or wells. (2) A community public facility plan shag inchWe inventories, projected needs, policies and regulations for the water and sewerage facilities which are existing or needed It cave the unimaaport ed community, including: (a) An inventory of the condition and capacity of existing public facilities and services; (b) An assessment of the level of facilities and services naoded to adequately serve the pL..W buiUmn within tun corimuchy aura boundary; and (c) Coordination agreements Consistent with ORS chapter 195. (3) If exising community facilities mod swiss are not currently adequae in serve the development allowed in tie plan and zoning ordinance, the comenunity public facility plan shall Contain either. (a) Development restrictions to ensure developmem will not exceed the capacity of the land in absorb waste and provide potable water and will not exceed the capacity of public facilities; or (b) A list of new facilities, and improvements for existing public facilities, necesary, ro adequately serve lie planned buildout in the unincorporated community, inchhding the projecedt toss of these improvements and an identification of the provider or providers of these impmvemrns; and (c) A discussion of the provider's finding mechmnisms and the ability of these and possibly new m thaniuns in fund the development of each co®unity public facility projem and (d) A requirement that development not occur until to necessary public facilities an, available for that development. Sat. Auth.; ORS 197.040 & 197245 San. Implemented: ORS 197.040 Hist_ LCDC 8-1994, f. & cert. cf. 12.5.94; LCDD 4.2006, I. & cat cf. 5-15-06 264.240 Eminent domain authority; acquisition efproperty and property rights; obtaining or baying water p4pe0pes. A domestic water supply district crcated under this chapter nay caacise the power of eminent domain both inside and outside of is boundaries, and may purchase, seq condemn and appropriate real property, water, water rights and riparian rights. A district also has the right to purchase or obtain from other local govemmems as defined in ORS 174.116, water or water rights, or an interest in water or water rights, or an interest in a wawa pipeline owned m operated by my such local gm c omem, or to obtain jointly with my such local government, my right. or to fay and own individually or jointly with any local government, any weer pipeline fm the purposes specified in ORS 264.110. [Amended by 1969 c.666 §53; 2003 c.802 §821 Rdn dofwets Uury S,nme (1)Awamw0hy rosy ~ef- m povbe mice mac Mmrm mappecem uodl h uceivn foil Prymmt of My ovesdw Mbumof0 Ow9m WffW a P&o Uned dmge,nd MY Odra Oka obII&M- uWed m a prior acwuntMcmtn Provided brow: (a) Daap ft rtsid-tW euwo®sa a appOttOU wbo wmo di,coomcmd fm drn M mitt,, warn mOhy dull povide union b a -idmdal app- UPou nrelp of P,Ymem Null m m loss On>half of MY Ovnth,e an-71r batMee of ft M- owed mdr udlhy shell be Pakf wimio 30 day, of the daM,emm i, iulii Mt.F cap Im dr lW paymrm,inm Shall be dr grtner of S30 M o ]U.If do 1-10: amount. (D) UP. faibue m p,y, do -u®ty may disc-suvme d-pmvidieg a wd- 0vo4aY nOd.. The moon Me0-U1U the mfmmed. and W W-d iO d. Omna pmathed b povbrd I. OAR 8600360215. WbM, eustotver who,e mitt wn om k=d appim (m service w'ubm 2D days of dm ennimdon, du pmvW=of dm nde apply. (2) If wmamltt It dbmeneaod I. faimm to amply with dti It"--ua fad I. Moran (I X,) of ail, rob. the wets mllhy may mAm m mswe mice MO7 It MCM es NO PeYomt of MY 01=dm OW4MOO of. 019M mif&d m prce-8srd d.V Md MY Uri 19. obligation rt)..d to e pia ~ --Wing My Mcaurcmtl fa, Ice paYmmt fee, and pan due bin. (3) A water mdity may fu m pmvlde union um] payment b received whoa dx following cheumrmcn eaim (a) A mWenEal cusmmer bu mcu,led m ov-1. bW-m a MrAce M&M- (b)A-A.Isl aPpIk-Iformvme resided udr-iae adduss deaeRW!in mb-d. (I X.) of dill son d-gme d-the ow,*. balm wM ivMmd; nod (c) The msmemiel --dnmbed'm mb-don OW Ofdda rule will ksi0e Y dr madaO m be mad W. dr mw applicsd.. (4) Any wail-ndihy 9u8 ufuM m povide Muth if a Msmmer or app0um bu oat ewWlkd with Mae =d mw&ipdd cafe, Mt rtpladom govemmg utvme Md with rip mks Md rtguladom of dm wm uNhY. (5) A war Utility shall mfuu m me a cmmmm m ap be if. I. the ben judp-. Of du wa Wky, do facintln Of do cuaamv meppb.. au of mtb a cbmnn It. &Mdea&N.Ory rttvioematsbegi- (6)Ifx,A.brtfurd,the-Udlhy thanp i*-i--d11O mil whfdo 10 waking days to dr cusoomtr m ap H=of do 0- fm mmsd sad of dr COOMi.m &oompbim paau. A copy Of ft =I= Shan alM be mtm dr CO-Oaon u"Im -Am was ndumd fm noopsYOrm. (7)Awab M7ity Shan oa MaepMapph.M. fm mice 0, -I.Hy change mke b,mm~mn d It don wt hav..dOp, of 7"vie mwmermousn brtodn me mi¢applied(or.I(IbedetuN Smvftt bo(arLatMtu dab likely munfv-WyM!-sautebolhaMSmmen,mifh b pmhibmd by law hom povidiog Ow urvise.Its warmutil'ay mUM, mittoil degrounds ofwadequam f,Nmesmwmermr . dr wMrudlby sIW1 Providethe cunxm mappenm withawdmev kdxedrtfO.,t aropy dwhicb shall be ummtlr CaroounbO.llr 4mermtM (a) Pmvido dr Mann for ft m6_a1, (b)W dr wnOma m Mplicmt dut hcVW may mquest dw demds ut-wb Me war~u.W,dedsion wn baud. ircmdmg bm nth gmbed to cunMt capeity W).d mrmmed iO galmm m Saba fcm pn odour Md Pwods Pa spume iMb (PUk (c) Wbm cgwity don m exiw, povide dr M mpovide capadty fm the sesmori m eppliml: Md (d)W dbcu,mmnaappli-Mth.hN,he mry cbsOMge the w'enudW, mf.9 of -Ni. d nh the Cmnalssmo's dispme tnobman poaa P.- m OAR 8600360025. SM. Autlt_ ORS 183.756, 756,757 Sm. t pl =z& ORS 756D40, 757.035, 757225 Hist_ PUC 17.1997, f. & c-ef. It .12-97; PUC M1998, f. & out d. 9-27.98; PUC 222002. f. R art. cf. 9.9-02; PUC 1&2DO3, f. R we f. 10403; PUC 21-2d)3(T.W), I. At ms. d. I I.1"3 dtm 5-1W14; PUC &7D00, I. Ran. d. 11-9-N I would emphasize that these concerns are not specifically about the Terrebonne Domestic Water District or its management; nor are they about coordinating land use decisions with organizations and facilities to ensure seamless planning and provision of community services. Some similar issues will surface in the Tumalo Community Plan review. Nor are the concerns an expression of disagreement with Planning Department or Planning Commission; both have full plates and are working hard to provide you as the Board with their best recommendations at the current time. And researching or having extensive knowledge and understanding of ORSs and OARS is not a personal strength. These concerns merely reflect for me inadequately resolved issues that include: (1) relying on a water district Master Plan reference that was not reviewed for currency or applicability, (2) promoting policies which seem to imply the deferral of development decisions to a water district's ability or willingness to provide water and (3) referencing a specific district as the sole provider by policy, an action which may unintentionally affect a community's ability to explore other sources of, or programs regarding, domestic water. I feel some embarrassment that these were not resolved earlier. I was under the mistaken impression that the Planning Commission would have another look at it when it reconsidered the entire comprehensive plan update Hopefully, if any of these issues are ones you feel may need additional clarification, the Planning Department will already have the information you require for your decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns - and for the work you do in planning for all of us. Digitally signed by lames H James H DN: cnl=lames H Powell, MD, o, Ou, email-jhp@bendbroadband.com Powell, MD =US Jim Powell Date: 2010.07.1412:0017-07'00' 20607 Coventry Circle Bend, OR cc: Nick Lelack, Deschutes County Planning Director Peter Gutowsky, Deschutes County Principal Planner Chris Brown, Chair, Deschutes County Planning Commission The County Court of Deschutes County, Oregon, met this 19th day of August, 1936, all members being present, when the following proceedings were had, to-wit: In the Matter of V Claims Against the County: The* following claims were presented and ordered paid: J. G. Tranel treasurer-supplies & exp. $ 3.50 0. C. Scroggins courthouse expense 5.25 Downing Cafe & Hotel relief 2..50 Eastside Grocer relief 710:00 Agnes Hyde relief 30.00 Magill Drug Company relief 4.35 Lyncy & Roberts relief 5.00 Oscar 0, Springgate relief .70 J. W. Thom-- relief - 5625 . John Wetle Co. relief 4 ..37 C. W. Williamson relief 3.00 In the Matter of the ✓ Sale of Real Property: It is kiereby Ordered that Lot 10, Block 8, of Bend, be added to that certain deed ordered drawn on August 5. It is hereby ordered that deed issue to Goo, T. Murphy, Jr„ for $40.00 the follow- ing real estate: NE4 of Section 21, Township 18 S. R., 12, EWM, $15.60 paid herewith, balance in rinety days. It appearing that Deschutes County has acquired title to certain real estate through tax foreclosures, and that it would be to the pest interest of said county to sell said real estate, it is hereby ordered that the following be offered for sale for cash, to the highest bidder, for not less than the sum set opposite each one: Lots 31 and 32,'Block 93, Hillman SW4SW4 of Sec. 15, T. 14, R. 9 / In the Matter of the Vacation of Tomes Addition to LaPine, Oregon 60.00 It is hereby Ordered that notices of vacation of Tomes Addition be posted in three conspicuous locations in that community for thirty da:Ts, and date for hearing was set for October 71 1936. In the Matter of the Organization of Terrebonne Water Supply District: Now at this time, September 25, 1936, is set by the Court as the date of holding an election on for the purpose of organizfng the Terrebonne Domestic Water Supply District: There being no further business, the Court adjourned. C. E. Lyon A. H. Tifft COUNTY JUDGE COMMISSIONER IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON-FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY In the Matter of the ) Incorporation of the ) ORDER. Terrebonne Watevbistrict ) The petition for the incorporation of the community of Terrebonne, in the C4ounty of Deschutes, State of Oregon, for the purpose of obtaining water for domestic purposes for its inhabitants, having been duly filed with the Cler:c of this Court and having been on the 5th. day of August, 1936, the same being the first day of this August Term of said Court, presented to the Court, and the Court having examined such peitition, and it ap- pearing to the Court therefrom that such petition contains the names of fifteen percent of the legal voters of that portion of such county described in said petition, and the said petitioners having deposited with the clerk the sum of thirty dollars to defray the expenses of the election, and the law having been complied with in all respects, Therefore be it ordered that an alection be and the same is hereby called to be held within such proposed district on the 25th, day of September, 1936; and be it further or- dered that the clerk of this Court prepare the official ballots, appoint judges and clerks, name the polling places, give notice of such election and do all other things required by law for the holding of said election as provided by statute. Dated this 19th day of August, 1936. Attest C. E. Lyon COMMISSIONER A. H. Tifft COMMISSIONER M. T. Triplett COM1,1TSSIONER 1 F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Clerk - OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE Bill Bradbury SECRETARY OF STATE February 2, 2005 Deschutes County Clerk Deschutes County Courthouse 1300 NW Wall, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701-1960 Dear County Clerk: ARCHIVES DIVISION ROY TURNBAUGH DIRECTOR 800 Summer Street NE Salem, Oregon 97310 (503) 373-0701 Facsimile (503) 373-0953 O CT1 C7 M rte. c r✓, rv Please be advised that we have received and filed as of February 2, 2005 records annexing territory to special districts within your county. Order No. Our File No. Jurisdiction OR NO 2005-002 SD 2005-0009 Terrebonne Domestic Water District Our assigned file number(s) are included with the above information. Please verify the effective date(s) for these annexations through the application of ORS 199.519. Sincerely, ~i/n-da Bjornstad Official Public Documents cc: ODOT/Highway Division Revenue Cartography Section J-r Es c0 cu Legal Counsel Mark Pilliod Jr 541-388-6625 Mark P. Amberg Jr 541-330-4645 Laurie E. Craghead t 541-388-6593 PLEASE REFER TO January 27, 2005 FILE No.: 16-599 Rita Mathews State Archives 800 Summers Street NE Salem, OR 97310 RE: C. B. Foss Annexation Territory (Terrebonne Domestic Water District) Final Order 2005-002 Enclosed is a certified copy of the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners' Order No. 2005-002 approving the above-referenced boundary change, along with its legal description and a map setting forth the boundaries. This is submitted in accordance with ORS 198.780. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Laurie E. Craghead Assistant Legal Counsel /Ij k Enclosure A~ cc: Deschutes County Assessor Deschutes County Clerk Liz Fancher 0 c~ p r-, SALegakSpecial DistrictsToss AnnexationTP2i4 tpebdse {~~eeA cti{~ Q~ a I~j 1