The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-161-Minutes for Meeting March 06,2017 Recorded 4/17/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-161 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners'Journal 04/17/2017 9:25:45 AM i For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Allen Conference Room Monday, March 6, 2017 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Phil Henderson. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator, Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator, David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Ross, Executive Secretary. Attending for a portion of the meeting were Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel, James Lewis, Property Management Specialist; Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer, and Judith Ure, Management Analyst. No representatives of the media or citizens were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:34 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Appeal of Hearings Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-000027-A) Will Groves, Senior Planner gave history on this appeal. The applicant, Larry Kine, requested Lot of Record Verification for ten areas located within the property identified on Assessor's map 18-11 Tax Lot 2001, within the Widgi Creek Resort Community. The applicant has recently requested a continuance until April 5, 2017 for additional time before the hearing. The Board expressed support of the continuance. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session March 6, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Mr. Groves reviewed his submitted staff report giving background information relating to the appeal. The original hearing was posted and scheduled for Wednesday, March 8`" but due to the continuance the hearing will remain on the agenda and only the staff report will be reviewed and the continuation will be set. 2. Discussion on Goals and Objectives: Judith Ure, Management Analyst and Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer presented the revised Deschutes County Goals and Objectives. This item was a topic of discussion at the 2017 Board Retreat in January. Both County Administrator Tom Anderson and Commission DeBone had submitted suggestions for additional revisions. Commissioner Baney felt the revisions offered were done well. Commissioner Henderson commented he didn't realize at the Retreat the statement and text was going to be revised and feels he would need to abstain from the vote to accept the revisions. Commissioner Henderson's concern is he has only been in office for two months and if this document is a measurement tool he should at least complete his orientation with departments. Departments rely on this document as a guide when preparing their annual budgets. Commissioner DeBone commented the mission statement may need more discussion. Discussion held on the purpose of the document. County Administrator Anderson noted from a management perspective this represents the commissioner's priority and vision for our County. Commissioner Baney inquired on the revisions fitting into our department's tracking for performance measurements. Discussion held on the newly revised four categories of: Safe Communities: protect the community through planning, preparedness, and delivery of coordinated services; Healthy People: enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and the residents they serve; Economic Vitality: promote policies and actions that sustain and stimulate economic vitality; and Service Delivery: provide solution -oriented service that is cost-effective and efficient. Discussion held on the definitions of social well-being, air, land, water resources, transportation, and housing. The original mission statement will remain and further revisions will be made and brought back to the Board for consideration. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session March 6, 2017 Page 2 of 4 OTHER ITEMS At 2:34 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:18 p.m. OTHER ITEMS: (continued) • Commissioner DeBone asked to review the membership of the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC). He reviewed memberships and the history of COIC. There is only one appointed member required by each of the counties of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook. Commissioner DeBone commented with the Chamber of Commerce as a partner, Katy Brooks would be a great fit. County Administrator Anderson reviewed the COIC roster noting this appointment would be to fill a vacancy requirement for a chamber representative. Commissioner Baney offered the suggestion of interviews for future appointments. Commissioner Henderson noted his concern of appointing someone that has just moved to town. This item is scheduled for consideration on the consent agenda for Wednesday and Commissioner DeBone recommends moving forward. At this time, Commissioner Henderson excused himself from the meeting for a short period of time due to a committed scheduled meeting. A quick recess was taken at 3:29 p.m. At 3:31 p.m. the Board went back into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 4:27 p.m. OTHER ITEMS: (continued) • Commissioner Henderson recommends a future discussion on PERS as this is a big topic in the legislative session this year. County Administrator Anderson noted for future schedules on Saturday April 8t" both the La Pine Chamber Awards event and the first annual 9-1-1 employee appreciation event are schedule that evening. County Administrator Anderson will be attending the 9-1-1 employee appreciation dinner. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session March 6, 2017 Page 3 of 4 ADJOURN: Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. 1 07 DATED this Board of Commissioners. PA u `air,• r Day of �' _ 2017 for the Deschutes County Tammy Baney, Chai, _. Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Philip G. He derson, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session March 6, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2017 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be addressed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Work Sessions allow the Board to discuss items in a less formal setting. Citizen comment is not allowed, although it may be permitted at the Board's discretion. If allowed, citizen comments regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing process will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. Work Sessions are not normally video or audio recorded, but written minutes are taken for the record. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS Appeal of Hearings Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-000027- A) - William Groves, Senior Planner 2. Discussion on Goals and Objectives OTHER ITEMS EXECUTIVE SESSION: under ORS 192.660 (2)(d) labor negotiations; and ORS192.660 (2) (e) real property negotiations These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, March 6, 2017 Page 1 of 2 ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar (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.) Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, March 6, 2017 Page 2 of 2 DATE: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of March 6, 2017 FROM: William Groves, Community Development, 541-388-6518 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Hearings Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-000027-A) PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by Larry Kine. The appeal is submitted in response to a January 6, 2017 Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision that the applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating the lot of record status of the subject property. The Board agreed to hear this matter de novo under Order 2017-003. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct work session. } 1 Community Development Department `f y Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmes)tat Soils Division RO. Box GGG5 117 P*l'v`4r Lafayette k.enue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (54) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 335-1764 http:,,fAvww.cleschutes.org/cci MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 2017 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: Board hearing on the Kine appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision. File No. 247 -16 -000408 -LR Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by Larry Kine. The appeal is submitted in response to a January 6, 2017 Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision that the applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating the lot of record status of the subject property. The Board agreed to hear this matter de novo under Order 2017-003. Staff notes that this memo is a supplemented version of the memo the Board received when choosing whether to hear this matter. New text below is underlined in Section I and the remaining Sections are wholly new material. I. BACKGROUND The applicant, Larry Kine, requested Lot of Record Verification for ten (10) areas located within the property identified on Assessor's map 18-11 Tax Lot 2001, within the Widgi Creek Resort Community. A Lot of Record Verification is an application that seeks to demonstrate that the configuration of identified lots or parcels was the result of lawful actions. This requires an analysis of the deed history of a property. The subject property was conveyed from the Bureau of Land Management into private ownership in 1984. This conveyance referred to a BLM document entitled "Dependent Resurvey, Subdivision of Sections 22 and 23 and Survey" ("Dependent Resurvey") dated January 12, 1984. The Dependent Resurvey mapped Parcels A, B, C, and D and these "parcels" are used to describe the land subject to the 1984 Federal conveyance. In order to find that these "parcels" were Lots of Record, the Hearings Officer would need to find that they met the DCC 18.04.030 requirements that the "parcels" "...conformed to all 1 Section 18.04.030 of the County Zoning Ordinance defines a "lot of record" as: A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means: Quality Services 1'rrfi)rine d ivith I'r ide zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created...", and that they were created by one of the means identified in the Lot of Record definition sections (A)(1-5). The Hearings Officer found that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) allows the BLM to create and convey lots that "a subsequent owner could use and convey". However, FLPMA does not preempt local requirements and, specifically, Section 718 of the FLPMA "places the burden of compliance" with state and local land use regulations on the grantee. Next, the Hearings Officer found: I concur with the Hearings Officer in Thompson, and with the applicant, that the BLM has the authority to create units of land and convey them without regard to the Oregon Revised Statutes and the Deschutes County Code. Those units of land are lawful; they can be used and conveyed by the grantee. But that only sets the stage for deciding whether those units of land are "lots of record" that the Deschutes County Code recognizes as developable. The applicant argued that the "parcels" were created in accordance with Lot of Record section (A)(2), "By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk". The Hearings Officer found that the "Dependent resurvey" was not a filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor nor was it recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk. Staff notes that the applicant has since recorded the BLM Dependent Resurvey with the Clerk. Next, the Hearings Officer found that the "parcels" did not conform "...to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created...". The Hearings Officer explained: In 1984 the parcel was zoned FU3 under PL -15 with a minimum lot area of 20 acres. At least one "parcel" — `A' is less than 20 acres; thus the division into four 1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92; 2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk; 3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat; 4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County Record of Plats; or 5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot or parcel. B. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot or parcel validated pursuant to ORS 92.176 shall be recognized as a lot of record. C. The following shall not be deemed to be a lot of record: 1. A lot or parcel created solely by a tax lot segregation because of an assessor's roll change or for the convenience of the assessor. 2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of way. 3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or parcel was conveyed subject to DCC 18.04.030(B). 4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest. parcels did not meet the zoning standards at the time. Further, as staff notes, PL - 14 the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance adopted in 1981 required: Section 2.010. SCOPE OF REGULATION. (1) Before a plat of any subdivision or the map of any partition may be made and recorded, the person proposing the subdivision or the partition, or his authorized agent or representative, shall make an application in writing to the County Planning Department for approval of the proposed subdivision or partition in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by this ordinance. The Dependent Resurvey was not applied for or approved in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by PL -14, and thus did not conform to all "subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created". (Bold in original) The applicant argues that the four parcels were subsequently left as 10 "remainder" parcels as the result of subdivision of the Widgi Creek Resort community. However, since the four "parcels" are not Lots of Record, the Hearings Officer found that later subdivision of adjacent land does not leave "remainder" lots from the "parcels". The Hearings Officer concluded: ...the applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating the prerequisite to lot of record status: conformance with all zoning and subdivision and partitioning requirements had been met given that the County had such provisions in effect at the time of the BLM dependent survey, the survey did not conform to those requirements, and at least one of the parcels may be below the minimum lot size at the time. Staff notes that since the Hearing's Officer decision, the applicant and staff have agreed that the applicant's analysis (if confirmed by the Board) would result in 11, not 10, Lots of Record. _ An area in the south east of BLM Parcel C was previously overlooked. Staff also notes that the original staff report and Hearings Office's decision misidentified the historic zoning of the property as FU -3. Staff believes this is the correct chronology: January 12, 1984 — Date of BLM Dependent Resurvey Property is zoned Forest Use (172) and some Surface Mine Reserve (SMR) February 29, 1984- Property is wholly zoned F2 under ordinance 84-016. Minimum lot size is 40 acres in this zone. October 9, 1984 — Date of BLM patent conveying Parcels A, B, C, and D Parcels A and B are less than 40 acres. To the extent the Board finds that the zoning of the property at the time of parcel creation is a relevant consideration, a finding that the Dependent Resurvey created the lot(s), rather than the Patent, will result in a different zoning analysis. II. KEY BOARD DECISION POINTS 1) Lawfully Established Unit of Land State statute recognizes "lawfully established unit of land" rather than lot of record [See ORS 92.010 (3)(a)]. Staff presumes that lot of record is generally an elaboration and further restriction of the State's lawfully established unit of land, but this is not explicit in local code. It is unclear if the history of the subject property would recommend a finding that the property contains the proposed 11 lawfully established units of land. It is also unclear if this answer would be different from the result of the lot of record analysis. This issue was raised before the Hearings Officer, was not determinatively resolved, and is likely to be of interest to LUBA if the Board's decision is appealed. Staff anticipates the Board will receive briefings on this issue and may want to make findings on this question. 2) Lot of Record The Hearings Officer relied heavily in on a prior Hearing Officer's decision (Thompson) in findings that a federal conveyance did not create a County lot of record, as described above. Since the hearing, staff has taken notice of and included in the record several historic lot of record cases that may influence the Board's thinking about this matter. In Pine Forest the Hearing Officer revisits Thompson and reaches a different conclusion based on a difference on the facts of the respective cases. Staff recommends the Board receive testimony on the salient difference between these cases. In an older Board decision, O'Neill, the Board recognized one lot from a federal conveyance but not multiple contiguous lots described in the federal conveyance. It appears to staff that any finding that the BLM conveyance resulted in the creation of lot(s) of record will rely in part on federal preemption of state and/or local regulations, potentially under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Staff recommends the Board request additional testimony on any pertinent federal case law on this question. Staff understands the applicant to argue that the 11 proposed lots of record result from modern subdivisions splitting the four BLM parcels into discontiguous remainders [See "Lot of Record" definition, section (A)(5)]. Because the Hearings Officer denied the four BLM parcels lot of record status, no detailed analysis of the effect of subsequent subdivisions was provided. If the Board finds on appeal that the BLM conveyance created lot(s) of record, the effect of subsequent subdivisions will need to be reviewed. In particular, subsequent subdivisions describe the subject golf course area as "not in plat" or do not describe the golf course at all. Regarding the subsequent subdivisions creating discontiguous remainders, the Hearings Officer notes: It is not clear how the Golf Village subdivision could create lots that explicitly are marked. "Not In Plat". Subdivision lots are created by inclusion in a plat. The plat does not label them as "lots" or "parcels" and shows their "boundaries" only by dashed section lines. There appears to be no reference to the BLM parcels on the plat. See DCC 18.04.030 B. 2 (section or township lines do not create lot of record.) It is at least as likely that this means that listing these as one "not in plat" area effectively consolidated those lawful parcels into one. See e.g. Weyerhauser Real Estate Dev Co v Polk County, LUBA No. 2011-022 (2011) Staff recommends the Board receive additional testimony on this issue. 3) Effect of Prior Decisions The applicant's notice of appeal inquires about the effect of prior lot of record determinations on the subject property. On quick search, staff has identified the following decisions as making lot of record findings on portions of the subject property: Pool/Fairway subdivisions (14-391-TP/14-395-TP), Golf Restrooms (SP -97-52), Clubhouse Expansion (Sp -96-72), Maintenance Building/Expansions (SP-09-15,SP-96- 5, SP -05-34), Lot of Record findings (LR -05-48, LR -03-26), Entrance Sign (LM -05-110) Most of these prior decisions were not included in the record before the Hearings Officer. Staff recommends the Board receive additional testimony on this issue. Attachments: 1. Hearing Officer's decision 2. Notice of Intent to Appeal Record Materials available at P:\CDD\Kine Lot Of Record Appeal\Record 3/2/2017 HEARING PROCEDURE The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record before the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. e The hearing will be conducted in the following order. i. Staff will provide a brief report. 2. The applicant will present its testimony and evidence. s. Opponents and proponents will testify and present evidence. 4. Other interested persons will then present testimony or evidence. S. The applicant presents rebuttal testimony. 6. Staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. Staff Report ® Background ® Proposal a, HO Decision ® Analysis and Issues ® Alternative Courses Action ® Questions Background — Widgi Creek e 1983: Widgi Creek created as a 237 -acre expansion to Seventh Mountain Resort • Land Conveyed by BLM to Seventh Mountain Sales Corporation in 1984 by patent identifying Parcels A, B, C, D, as shown in a "survey of the said land". TOWNSHIP IS SWTH, RANGE H EAST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN,OREGON AT I "t i 11 `. F: I Background — Widgi Creek ® "Seventh Mountain Golf Village" platted on this land in 19go ® Elkai subdivisions follow later. 3/2/2017 2 Background — Widgi Creek ® "Seventh Mountain Golf Village" plat shows golf course areas as "not in plat". ® What is the legal status of the golf course area? ® Is the golf course comprised of one lot or many legal lots? • Applicant argues there are to (u). • Hearings Officer: a "The applicant has not met its burden of establishing that the area at issue constitutes a lot of record, or multiple lots of record as defined by the Deschutes County Code." TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE II EAST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, OREGON - Yye 3 .f Background — Widgi Creek ® "Seventh Mountain Golf Village" plat shows golf course areas as "not in plat". ® What is the legal status of the golf course area? ® Is the golf course comprised of one lot or many legal lots? • Applicant argues there are to (u). • Hearings Officer: a "The applicant has not met its burden of establishing that the area at issue constitutes a lot of record, or multiple lots of record as defined by the Deschutes County Code." 3/2/2017 tl TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANSE II EAST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN OREGON - Yye 3 3/2/2017 tl Background — Lawfully established unit of land ORS 92.010 (3)(a) "Lawfully established unit of land" means: • (A) A lot or parcel created pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.192; or • (B) Another unit of land created: (i) In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning and subdivision or partition ordinances and regulations; or • (ii) By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or subdivision or partition ordinances or regulations. • (b) "Lawfully established unit of land" does not mean a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. Background — Lawfully established unit of land ® ORS 92.017 When lawfully created lot or parcel remains discrete lot or parcel. • A lot or parcel lawfully created shall remain a discrete lot or parcel, unless the lot or parcel lines are vacated or the lot or parcel is further divided, as provided by law. ® "Once a lot always a lot" unless formally eliminated by an 'overwriting" plat or formal consolidation approval. Background — Lawfully established unit of land ® Question #i • Does the 1984 BLM conveyance and subsequent o mtvy approvals create one or many "Lawfully established unit(s) of land"? • Created pursuant to ORS 92.oro to 92.192; or • Federal Preemption from applicable planning, zoning and subdivision or partition ordinances and regulations in 1984• • Hearing Officer: Maybe 3/2/2017 0 Background — Lot of Record o "Lot of Record" - County restriction limiting development to certain lawfully established unit(s) of land. Background — Lot of Record • Question #z: Does the 1984 BLM conveyance create one or many "Lot(s) of Record"? • Created pursuant to Lot of Record definition; or • Federal Preemption from Lot of Record definition. Background — Lot of Record • A "two-pronged" test. • 1) "Lot of Record" means: • A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feetwide, which conformed to all zadnv and subdivision or narrit"on eqn' v nents, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means:... • HO: PL -14 was in effect in 1984 requiring County application for division of land. No such application was made. • Zoning Fz in 1984 (F3 wrong in decision). 4o -Acre Minimum (Parcels A and B smaller). However, entire conveyance over 40. • Federal Preemption or denial required 3/2/2017 5 Background — Lot of Record • I. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92; • No argument that a partition occurred. • z. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk; • HO: 1984 BLM survey is an ORS 92 subdivision plat, but was not filed. Has since been recorded. Background — Lot of Record ® 3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the. parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat; • HO: BLM patent (vs. survey) would make one lot under this provision. (Multiple descriptions) (Ok ifa "recorded subdivision" is found to exist) Background — Lot of Record ® 4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County Record of Plats; or • No argument that a town plat was filed. ® 5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot or parcel. • Applicant argues that plats filed after the BLM survey/patent split the 4 BLM parcels into 10 (n) remainders. HO did not review this analysis in detail. 3/2/2017 I. Background — Lot of Record • Prior Approvals • Question #3; What effect do prior approvals recognizing areas within Widgi as Lot(s) record have? • Pool /Fait —y(G4-391-TP/14-395-TP), Golf Restrooms(SP-97-52) Clubhouse Expansion (Sp -96-72), Maintenance Building/Expansions (SP-09-15,SP-96-5, SP -o5-$4), Lot of Record findings (LR -05-48, LR - o3 -z6), Erman—Sign (LM-o5-uo) 3/2/2017 7 3/2/2017 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of March 6, 2017 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Goals and Objectives Discussion PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Judith Ure, Whitney Hale SUMMARY: Discussion of FY 2018 Goals and Objectives Deschutes County FY 2018 Draft Goals and Objectives Mission Statement: Working for and with our citizens and partners to support strong, safe and healthy communities. Safe Communities: Protect the community through planning, preparedness, and delivery of coordinated services. • Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. • Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. • Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. Healthy People: Enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and the residents they serve. • Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations. • Promote social well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. • Help to sustain air, land, and water resources in balance with other community needs. Economic Vitality: Promote policies and actions that sustain and stimulate economic vitality. • Support affordable housing options through availability of lands and appropriate fiscal regulation. • Administer land use programs that promote flexibility, livability, and sustainability. • Maintain a safe, multi -modal, sustainable transportation system. • Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism, and recreation. Service Delivery: Provide solution -oriented service that is cost-effective and efficient. • Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. • Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. • Continue to promote community participation and engagement with County government. • Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. • Provide collaborative internal support for County operations.