��ʮ���²����

Under OAR 661-010-0010(3) and ORS 197.015, a local government decision becomes final—and therefore subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction—only when it bears the necessary signatures of the decision maker(s), even if it lists an earlier date as the “date of decision.”

Petitioner appeals an oral vote by the city council approving a preliminary partition. Intervenor moves to dismiss the appeal.

Under ORS 197.015, LUBA is authorized to review “land use decision[s]” and “limited land use decision[s],” each of which is defined to include “[a] final decision or determination made by a local government or special district . . . .” Under OAR 661-010-0010(3), “[a] decision becomes final when it “is reduced to writing and bears the necessary signatures of the decision maker(s) . . . .”

Petitioner argues that, because a document prepared by the city’s contract planner lists the “date of decision” for the relevant partition as the date of the oral vote, and includes findings of fact, conclusions of law, and exhibits, the city has issued a final decision subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction. Because the document does not “bear the necessary signatures of the decision maker(s)”, LUBA agrees with intervenor that the city has not yet issued a final decision and, consequently, LUBA does not have jurisdiction. The appeal is DISMISSED.