Agenda Item 4 - UGB Rulemaking <br />December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Meeting <br />Page 51 of 56 <br />incorporate a measure of a city's past performance in implementing infrastructure financing <br />methods. <br />Additional discussion of the draft rule serviceability provisions, and specifically the questions <br />around the certainty of committed financing, took place at the October 1 UGBRAC meeting. In <br />general the discussion acknowledged the difficulty in establishing certainty for financing <br />mechanisms that are prospective in nature and will involve discretionary decisions to be made by <br />future governing bodies. City representatives in particular expressed the opinion that it would be <br />problematic to attempt to establish a meaningful measure of the likelihood that proposed funding <br />mechanisms will be approved by local legislative bodies or voters. <br />Based on this input and the other comments received to date, in Draft 3, the department has <br />proposed no substantive changes to the September 10 draft (Draft 1) rule provisions for <br />serviceability. <br />VIII. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO OAR 660, DIVISION 24 <br />With regard to the "traditional process", the commission's current rules interpreting Goal 14 and <br />related statutes concerning UGBs are at OAR chapter 660, division 24 (this report abbreviates <br />that as "division 24" as it describes these rules below). The rules in division 24 are essentially <br />"the traditional UGB amendment process." As such, in keeping with the intent of the Design <br />Team, the department does not propose to change this process except where required by ORS <br />197A.320. The one area where that statute especially requires changing of the traditional process <br />is with respect to the so-called "locational" requirements, which now include the "study area" <br />requirements as well. These requirements are proposed to be the same for both the new <br />simplified process and the traditional process. <br />In other words, ORS 197A.320 concerning "locational aspects" of UGB expansion, not only <br />applies to the new simplified UGB process - it also applies to, and changes, the current <br />traditional process for cities outside of Metro. The new location statute amends previous state <br />law (and rules) concerning: (1) the establishment of study areas for expansion of a UGB; and (2) <br />concerning the priorities for selecting land for such expansion. Therefore, to implement this <br />particular law, the commission must also amend current rules in division 24 and adopt new rules <br />in that division. Attachment B to this report shows the proposed amended rules and new rules for <br />OAR chapter 660, division 24. <br />Since this statute is the only one in the string of statutes in the new laws at ORS 197A that <br />affects the traditional UGB process, the department's proposed amendments to division 24 <br />primarily concern the location rules in that division. There is currently only one rule in <br />division 24 for determining something similar to a study area for UGB amendment and for <br />applying priorities in selecting land to add to the UGB from the study area. Because the priorities <br />statute at ORS 197.298 is superseded, except for Metro, the current priorities rules in division 24 <br />must be amended so that: (1) the current rules apply only to Metro; and, (2) the rules for all cities <br />outside of Metro are basically the same as those that have been proposed in division 38. <br />