Loading...
1992-24215-Minutes for Meeting June 24,1992 Recorded 7/15/19929224215 0118-1198 MINUTES 92 DESCHUTES County BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS June 24, ,1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. BoA ri members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel; Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Mike Maier, County Administrator; and Larry Rice, Public Work Director. Chairman Maudlin convened as the Governing Body for the Deschutes County 911 County Service District. 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION 92-046 ADOPTING BUDGET AND RESOLUTION 92-047 LEVYING TAXES FOR 911 SERVICE DISTRICT Before the Board was a public hearing on Resolution 92-046 adopting the budget and Resolution 92-047 levying taxes and making appropriations for the Deschutes County 911 County Service District Budget. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Maudlin asked for a motion for Resolution 92-046 and 92-047 for the 911 County Service District Budget. SCHLANGEN: So moved. MAUDLIN: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: Excused SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin adjourned the meeting of the Governing Body for the Deschutes County 911 County Service District and convened as the Governing Body for the Deschutes County Extension & 4-H Service District. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION 92-042 ADOPTING BUDGET AND RESOLUTION 92-043 LEVYING TAXES FOR THE EXTENSION & 4-H SERVICE DISTRICT BUDGET Before the Board was a public hearing on Resolution 92-042 adopting the budget and Resolution 92-043 levying taxes and making appropriations for the Deschutes County Extension & 4-H Service District Budget. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to transfer, the public hearing was closed. PAGE 1 MINUTES: 6-24-92 ~'` ACHE ' 0118-1199 Chairman Maudlin asked for a motion for Resolution 92-042 and Resolution 94-043. SCHLANGEN: So moved. MAUDLIN: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: Excused SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin adjourned the meeting of the Governing Body of the Deschutes County Extension & 4-H Service District and convened as the Governing Body of the Black Butte Ranch Service District. Commissioner Throop joined the meeting at this time. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION 92-044 ADOPTING BUDGET AND RESOLUTION 92-045 LEVYING TAXES FOR THE BLACK BUTTE RANCH SERVICE DISTRICT Before the Board was a public hearing on Resolution 92-044 adopting the budget and Resolution 92-045 levying taxes and making appropriations for the Black Butte Ranch Service District Budget. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Maudlin asked for a motion on Resolutions 92-044 and 92-045. SCHLANGEN: So moved. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 4. RESOLUTION 92-053 TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-053 transferring $3,000 in appropriations within various funds of the Black Butte Ranch Service District Budget. SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Resolution 92-053. THROOP: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 2 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-1200 Chairman Maudlin adjourned the meeting of the Governing Body of the Black Butte Ranch Service District and convened the meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 5. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Intergovernmental Agreement with Child Development and Rehabilitation Center; #2, Chair signature of 1992-93 Special Transportation Fund Grant Application and Approval of Allocations; #3, signature of tax refund Order 92-063; #4, signature of Acceptance of Road Right of Way documents for Mt. Washington Drive (Broken Top Subdivision); #5, appointment of Roberta Berry and Dr. John Prignano to the Local Alcohol & Drug Planning Committee; #6, reappointment of Claude Sprouse to Four Rivers Vector Control District; #7, appointment of Pat Fordney to Black Butte Ranch Service District Budget Committee; #8, reappointments of Bob Hagerty and Paul Stell to the Weed Advisory Board; #9, signature of Order 92-062 establishing the road name of Rudi Road; and #10, approval of outside employment of Building Safety Inspectors. THROOP: Move approval. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 6. County BUDGET Mike Maier had some comments for the Board concerning the public hearing at 10 a.m. on the County budget. He said the budget being presented at the 10 a.m. hearing would not be adopted on Monday as he had previously indicated. It would be adopted on September 23, 1992, which was a week after the Sheriff's serial levy. Postponing the adoption would require that the County get an extension for submitting the budget to the Assessor's Office and certifying the tax levy. He would have appropriations on Monday for the latest budget. If the levy failed, the Board would adopt the version as appropriated. If it passed, they would adopt a version with the additional funds. This would not require the Board to hold another budget hearing. 6. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS AND TAX OVERPAYMENT REFUNDS Before the Board was approval of three batches of accounts payable vouchers: $128,840.31, $1,223.43 and $387,337.31. Also before the Board was approval of tax overpayment refunds in the amount of $2,367.22. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 6-24-92 7. .`� OR THROOP: I'll move signature subject to review. 0118-1201 SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES AMENDMENT TO THE PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE FARM STUDY Before the Board was signature of an Amendment to the Personal Services Contract with Oregon State University providing the services of James R. Pease, Ph.D. concerning the farm study being done for Deschutes County. To the existing contract, the amendment would add $1,725.00 for "special tabulations from 1987 Census of Agriculture." THROOP: I'll move signature of Nancy's Farm Study Contract. SCHLANGEN: I'll second that. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES CONDOMINIUM PLAT FOR SKYWEST TOWNHOMES STAGE C Before the Board was signature of a condominium plat for Skywest Townhomes Stage C off SW 17th and Knoll Road for Glenco Investment. THROOP: I'll move signature. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SISTERS ROTARY CLUB Before the Board was chair signature of an OLCC Community Event Dispenser License for the Sisters Rotary Club for a July 4 picnic. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 4 MINUTES: 6-24-92 10. 11. 12. 13. 0118-1202 WILSON AVENUE BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL PARK Before the Board was signature of plat for the Wilson Avenue Business & Industrial Park for Nielsen and Ranta. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR SHADOW RIDGE SUBDIVISION Before the Board was signature of Subdivision plat for Shadow Ridge Subdivision off Galveston and 17th for the Bend Partners Limited. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR SILVER SAGE SUBDIVISION PHASE I Before the Board was signature of Silver Sage Subdivision located east of Tamarack Park Subdivision on the north extension of Purcell Boulevard for Gary Bendix. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SATISFACTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PACIFIC NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Before the Board was signature of a Satisfaction of Agreement for Pacific Northwest Development Corporation. Rick Isham explained that Pete Wilson was developing Providence Subdivision and, as part of their approval, they were required to fund a portion of the improvement of Neff Road. Instead of funding it under their Development Agreement, they decided to make the improvements to Neff Road themselves. These improvements were checked and approved by the County Public PAGE 5 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-1203 Works Department. This agreement released the lots in Providence from the improvement agreement. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion for signature. SCHLANGEN: So moved. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 14. PUBLIC HEARING ON DESCHUTES County BUDGET Before the Board was a public hearing on the Deschutes County Budget. Mike Maier said the Board had a copy of the proposed version of the budget. As he mentioned earlier, the Board would not take final action to adopt this budget until September 23 when the results of the Sheriff's levy would be known. The budget, as currently proposed, was within the County's known revenues, and the amount added if the levy was successful would be a little under $700,000 for the Sheriff's Department. The budget maintained the 36 -hour workweek and incorporated a 3% cost -of -living increase for general County employees. There was an across-the-board reduction in almost every category for education, training and travel, and capital outlay was measurably reduced. The $250,000 contingency was borderline as well as a less that $700,000 beginning cash for next year. That was the smallest beginning cash the County had every had in the 12 years he had been with the County. He hoped to have enough savings during the course of the year to be able to go into the 93-94 fiscal year with sufficient funds to carry through to November, however the County might have to buy tax anticipation notes to survive. There was one change in the Board's copy of the budget. Larry Rice, Public Works Director, just submitted some new information concerning the local improvement district project fund on page 103. The beginning cash was $430,000, interest on investments was $25,000, proceeds in the bond issue was $670,000, no change on assessment payments, total revenue would be $1,625,000, the LID construction amount was $640,000, the operating contingency would be $218,664, and there was a road fund charge of $80,000. The department total and the fund total remained the same. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. Alan Bruckner, Bend City Commissioner, testified regarding the County's overall policy pertaining to roads and road funds. He said one-third of Deschutes County residents lived in cities, over one-third of the property taxes collected by the PAGE 6 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-1204 County came from the city residents, and over a third of the cars registered ( the basis for the gas tax distributions) were owned by city residents. He pointed out that rural residents used city streets extensively causing degradation and needed maintenance while they contributed nothing to city roads. He suggested that road money could be a major tool in directing growth to the urban areas. The City Commission felt it was incorrect to arbitrarily draw a circle or line within the County wherein no road money would be spent, and they felt all cities should be treated equally with areas outside the city. The City and the County and been working in a cooperative manner on the Parkway needs, and both parties had made specific commitments to the State. Now it appeared the County might be "back peddling" on its commitment. They were extremely concerned about what appeared to be the County's change in commitment. He said that forest receipts had been shared with cities for about 20 years. Cities had judiciously used the money for maintenance. During meetings with the County about the city's road needs, not one word was said that the County was considering eliminating forest receipts to the cities. They read about it in the newspaper on April 13 which was late in the budget process for them. They felt this decision was retaliatory because of the city's decision to "go it alone" on the gas tax. The city budget for roads for the year just ending was $877,000 from State and $254,000 from forest receipts, so they still had to get $100,000 from their general fund. For this coming year, they would get $1,027,000 from the State, so with the County eliminating the forest receipts to the City, that would result in $413,000 having to come from the general fund. Therefore, city tax payers were paying $400,000 in general fund taxes to roads which everyone uses, while the County was taking $600,000 from state and federal dedicated road money and using it for general fund expenditures. He felt it was government's role to make things more fair. Concerning the outside money the County received from State gas taxes and forest receipts, except for the $600,000 extra the County showed in the budget last year which was received the prior year, there had been a steady increase in the outside sources (from 5.3 million to 6.2 million or an increase of $900,000 in the last three years). Then the County increased transfers from the Solid Waste program for over $400,000. By cutting cities out of forest receipts, the County increased its income by another $400,000, which totaled $1.7 million or a 30% increase in three years. The County budget showed receipt of $3,542,00 from the state gas tax while the state said the County received $3,861,000; and the 92-93 budget showed $3,940,000 from gas taxes while the state estimated $4,354,000. In these two years, the County would receive $700,000 more than was shown in the budget. In summary, fairness and equity to all County residents required the expenditure of funds on roads throughout the County, including the cities. He encouraged the County to honor its PAGE 7 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-1205 commitments since the money was available. He suggested they explore the method used in the Lane County/Eugene/Springfield road agreements. There being no one else who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. Chairman announced that the appropriations would be made on Monday, and the budget would be adopted on September 23, 1992. 15. DEED RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING OPEN SPACE AT RIM AT ASPEN LAKES Before the Board was signature of a Land Use Restriction Agreement with KMB Enterprises concerning open space at the property platted in the Rim at Aspen Lakes subdivision. Bruce White said the memo he gave the Board outlined the four different areas in the open space which were subject to four different kinds of restrictions. There was also a signed subordination agreement which was included in the package. Building permits had been held up pending resolution of these issues. There were a couple matters he wanted to have read into the record concerning the ongoing acknowledgement appeal. He said the stickiest issue concerned the "stable area." He asked Max Merrill, attorney representing KMB Enterprises, to come forward to respond on the record concerning four items. Bruce White continued that to protect their rights, the Cyruses had filed an appeal of LCDC's acknowledgement of the surface mining site which was on the flood plain there. (1) As part of the agreement, they had agreed that they would not pursue the appeal and would dismiss their appeal before the court of appeals. Max Merrill said that was correct. (2) There was another issue concerning the finalization of the management plan. Bruce White said it was somewhat ambiguous as to whether that had occur before building permits could be issued. They had agreed that the County would start issuing building permits as soon as these restrictions were recorded. The Cyruses would work on the management plan, and they would not be able to apply for any further development approvals on the project which was covered by the conditional use permit for the cluster development. Max Merrill said that was also correct. (3) Bruce White said the plat which was filed in 1990 contained a note stating that it was subject to a management plan referencing a ODF&W 1990 letter. He said that note assumed they were going ahead with surface mining. He wanted to clarify that that was not going to be the operative management plan. Max Merrill said yes, and the deed restriction said exactly what they could do and they would work within that language. The letter had referred to ponds, etc. which they were no longer doing. The deed restriction still required that ODF&W be consulted regarding their management plan. (4) Bruce White said there were already existing covenants on the property which didn't, at this time, PAGE 8 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-1206 cover the open space areas. In the event that the existing covenants and restriction were amended to include the open space areas, these deed restrictions would take precedence. Max Merrill said that was true. Bruce White said this was to make sure that nothing in the existing covenants could be used to undue what was being done in the deed restrictions. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion for signature of Deed Restriction concerning open space at the Rim at Aspen Lakes. SCHLANGEN: So moved. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 16. PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING RESOLUTION 92-022 ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE Before the Board was a public hearing on Resolution 92-022 adopting and continuing fees and charges for services. Mike Maier said there was one change on page 39 of exhibit A. Under nonseparated new construction where it said "each additional yard" at $8, it was being changed to $5 with a notation that this would be effective September 1 instead of July 1. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing for testimony. Dennis Luke, 370 SE Reed Market Road, testified that he was speaking for the members of the construction industry. On page 39, he questioned raising the new construction fee to $20. He said the Deschutes County landfill did not recycle many of the items they used in new home construction, and he felt they were being singled out for higher fees. While remodelers, who created more junk than new construction, had lower fees. Larry Rice said the fee for mixed demolition waste from remodeling was about the same as last year. The change in fees was for new construction, where the builders had the opportunity on the site to separate their waste material. In order to meet state recycling laws, some communities were mandating source separation of new construction waste. However, Deschutes County was trying to have the industry respond to a fiscal incentive to separate the waste. He appeared before the home builders about a year ago and requested that they separate their waste. At that time there was only a small differential in the rates. There was very PAGE 9 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-120'7 little response to that request, so he felt it was necessary to charge a larger differential for a more realistic incentive. The people he spoke with said the fee differential was so small that it wasn't worth their time to separate the waste material. If this new rate still didn't work, the County might also have to consider mandatory separation of waste materials. After discussion with haulers, they decided to lower the additional load rate from $8 to $5. He felt that postponing the implementation of these new rates until September would allow the industry to make adjustments, and for the hauler to recoup their money for boxes which were already out. He said the $.50 increase in the industrial material waste was the first increase in five years. Chairman Maudlin asked about the rates for remodeling waste materials. Larry Rice said the costs were prohibitive to source separate at a remodeling site, while it wasn't at a new construction site. Dennis Luke asked why the new construction builders were being penalized because the County did not recycle sheet rock, asphalt roofing, styrofoam packaging. Larry Rice said the same rates applied for mixed waste as were charged before. What was changed was new building construction. The sheet rock, etc., out of new homes would be charged at the rate of mixed waste just as it was now. There was no penalty for it because the County did not expect them to hand separate that sort of material. The only item that needed to be separated out was new construction wood waste. Chairman Maudlin asked if that wood waste included some sheet rock, would it cost $20 instead of $3, and Larry Rice said that was correct. Dennis Luke suggested that builders could then try to hide their wood waste under the sheet rock to pay the lower fee. Mr. Rice said that when the box was dumped, if it contained wood waste along with other building materials, they would be charged the higher rate. Chairman Maudlin asked if they could put some household garbage in with their building materials and dispose of it under the commercial rate? Larry Rice said if it were taken to Demo, they would be charged for mixed waste. Chairman Maudlin asked what if it were taken to Knott. Larry Rice said that so far there hadn't been a problem with people trying to burying demolition waste at the sanitary landfill. If it became a problem, they'd have to deal with it. Dennis Luke said they were not opposed to recycling, and the majority of them did not use drop boxes since they were too expensive to have at a single family residence. They would like to have a definition of "acceptable new construction" and "nonacceptable." He said he must have missed the home builders meeting when Larry Rice attended, however they were very concerned that they were being penalized without any alternatives since the County did not recycle everything. PAGE 10 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-1208 Chairman Maudlin said that since these rates did not go into effect until September 1, that the parties could get together and decided what was acceptable and what was not. Larry Rice said most of the people who were involved already knew, because they had had their loads rejected when they went to Knott and were told they had to go to Demo. He said wood waste only included wood, no scrap metal, plastic, etc. Dennis Luke asked if when it said "non -separated new construction material" it meant strictly wood? Larry Rice said the builder had the opportunity to separate out their wood waste from their other waste, and then they would get a break on their wood waste taken to Knott for recycling. Dennis Luke said they also accepted cardboard and the metal straps at the recycling center. He asked if the $20 fee applied to anything that was not recyclable. Larry Rice said if it was demolition material, the demotion rates applied. Dennis Luke said he would still like to have this all clarified. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Rice to write a memo to clarify precisely what the rate language meant. Then a definitive set of guidelines which anyone could pick up and know precisely what the language meant. Mr. Luke said they would be happy to mail out those guidelines to everyone on their association mailing list. Mike Mills, PO Box 710, Salem 97301, attorney representing Brownrigg Investments and their customers, testified that they would also like to work with Mr. Rice on clarifying some of these issues and how they would affect their customers. He said there were some significant impacts for them, i.e. would it now be necessary for them to have two bins at each new construction site rather than one. What sizes would the bins need to be? Would they need to be in middle when the customer would say it was clean wood waste, and the attendant says it wasn't? They would like to establish some definite guidelines so they could communicate them to their customers. They were also concerned that a significant fee increase was being proposed. There was a significant fee last year at the disposal sites also. When the County started using scales next year, Mr. Rice had warned them there would be further disposal fee increases. They were concerned that these fee increases would negatively impact the collection franchise system. Over the last few years, everyone agreed the County should be working to diminish the amount of self -hauling to the landfills. If the fees were increased too much, self - hauling would undoubtedly increase. He suggested moving very selectively and carefully on the fee increases, and as soon as possible, they wanted to know about any proposed increases due to the use of scales. He referred to the memorandum of understanding of July 1991 to make sure that everyone was still focused on the issue of universal service. They felt PAGE 11 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-1209 there had been an implied understanding that until 1994, there would not be these kinds of increases. They had no specific objection to the fee increases as proposed as far as the increments. Commissioner Throop mentioned that the language in the memorandum was linked to the universal service question. Since universal service was not going forward, the other linkages were nullified. Since these three categories (demolition waste disposal, mixed new construction/demo wood material, separated acceptable new construction) had some clarification and definition problems, Mr. Mills suggested that the Board approve the fee schedule with the exception of those items. As the definitions were developed with the home builders, contractors, and franchisees, there might need to be increases or decreasing in those proposed fees. Chairman Maudlin asked if he wanted the demolition waste deposal fee on page 38, mixed new construction/wood material, and separated acceptable new construction items to be left out until September 1? Mr. Mills said that was his understanding of the three categories which had been called into question. Chairman Maudlin said the only category which was not scheduled to go into effect until September 1 was the mixed new construction/demo wood material. Mr. Mills said that all three needed to be looked at during the discussion about definitions, and therefore felt they should all be postponed. Commissioner Throop said the separated acceptable new construction fee actually had been lowered. Larry Rice said yes, for those who chose to do it. Chairman Maudlin said he understood there was no charge or maybe a $1 charge for new wood material which was being hauled and placed in the wood waste pile. Larry Rice said there was a contract with a commercial firm to do the hog fuel grinding, and $1 just wouldn't cover the costs, so this language would cover that. Chairman Maudlin asked if Larry Rice would have any objection to delaying those three items until September 1? Larry Rice said no, they could just keep the current rates in effect until September 1. Commissioner Throop asked why the demolition waste disposal fee per cubic yard and the separated acceptable new construction should be postponed, since he felt they were irrelevant to this discussion. Mr. Mills said he still felt these areas were not clear to the public, and there needed to be some written guidelines about what fit into those three categories. He said it was currently 0-3 yards under the demotion waste, and it was being proposed 0-1 yards, so there would be an $11 difference in a 20 yard load. He felt that when the definitions were "worked through," there might be a reason to adjust that fee up or down. He felt all three issues were interrelated and therefore all three should be postponed. Chairman Maudlin said he could see his point. Larry Rice asked Legal Counsel Rick Isham if the fees could be adjusted after the fee schedule was adopted. Rick Isham said PAGE 12 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-1210 it was anticipated that the fee ordinance would be renewed annually, however he felt this portion could be continued to September 1 provided it was done in the context of the decision being made to adopt this resolution. Larry Rice said he didn't have any problem with deferring these items until September 1. Dennis Luke said recycling was as much of an education process as a physical process, and he suggested that some type of education program for builders, i.e. a handout with the building permit. David Hellbusch, 623 Congress, Bend, testified that he was thoroughly confused and was, therefore, in favor of postponing these items for further clarification. He felt the $20 fee was terribly high and discriminated against the building industry, since the homeowner was not penalized for not recycling. Chairman Maudlin said the fee was only $20 if the builder refused to separate out the wood waste, otherwise it would be $5. Mr. Hellbusch said it would cost him $50 to separate it, so he felt the economics were all wrong. He was afraid builders would just bury the material on the site. He wondered if one nail in a 2x4 would void the whole load? Chairman Maudlin proposed that these three items being discussed be postponed until September 1 so the parties could meet and make some clarifications. He said he had received phone calls from County residents who had 20 -gallon cans saying they paid more for their 20 -gallon can than people living in the City. Evidently the City recently adopted a reduced rate for a 20 -gallon can. He asked Larry Rice if that was being considered for the County also? Larry Rice said it was late for the County to adopt the same thing last year, but it would be considered for the next rate discussions in April 1993. Since it would cost the haulers about the same amount to handle a 20 -gallon can as a larger can, any reduction in the fee would have to be made up somewhere else. Bruce Bailey, Bend Garbage and Recycling, said the joint committee with the City had an interest in trying to offer rate incentives to encourage recycle, so the committee recommended offering a mini -can for $1 less. The City also adopted a recycle only rate of $4.50 (half rate) for those people who didn't generate garbage but wanted to participate in recycling. Chairman Maudlin asked what they were charging people to recycle now. Mr. Bailey said it was included in their garbage serve rate, and was approximately $1.30. Commissioner Throop said it had been a free service to non - customers, however that program had been discontinued. He pointed out that the committee had been considering a couple of issues: recycling and how to fund the solid management system over time; and rather than "coming to grips" with how PAGE 13 MINUTES: 6-24-92 17 . 0118-1211 to fund the solid waste management over time, they lowered fees. Mr. Bailey said the problem was the participation rate in the collection system was so low. They were concerned that any move to encourage self -hauling would increase the County's and the haulers' costs. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. THROOP: I'll move approval of the 1992-93 fee schedule with the following amendment and that's to delay the imposition of the new fees on demolition waste disposal fee per cubic yard, nonseparated new construction, and separated acceptable new construction on page 39 to September 1. SCHLANGEN: I'll second the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Throop said the Board wanted Larry Rice to prepare an explanatory memo which would described those three categories in advance of the September 1 deadline. The County would work with the haulers and the building industry to try to do a public education effort to get this information out. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES RESOLUTION 92-055 DECLARING THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SMOKE FREE Before the Board was consider of declaring the County Administration Building as a smoke-free building effective July 1, 1992. THROOP: I'll move that the County Administration Building be smoke free. SCHLANGEN: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: NO PAGE 14 MINUTES: 6-24-92 DATED this h day of Commissioners of Deschutes ( ATT T: Recording Secretary PAGE 15 MINUTES: 6-24-92 0118-1.212 1992, by the Board of rCommi sioner i 5 hlangen, Commi0 ioner U-/' Dick Maudlin, Chairman