Loading...
1992-26347-Minutes for Meeting July 22,1992 Recorded 8/5/19920 92-2634'7 119-0039 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS , --5 Pk'l July 22, 1992, Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 T9 aajfd members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Rick Isham, County Counsel; Catherine Morrow, Planner; Larry Rice, Public Works Director; Kevin Harrison, Planner; Sue Brewster, Assistant County Counsel; and George Read, Planning Director. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Order 92-075 establishing a portion of Camp Polk Road as a County Road; #2, chair signature of Amendment #1 to the 1992/1993 Oregon Health Division Notice of Grant Award; #3, signature of Order 92-076 changing the name of a portion of Buck Canyon Road to Pocahontas Lane; #4, signature of Order 92-077 assigning the road name of Schibel Road; #5, signature of Order 92-079 assigning the road name of Cox Lane; #6, signature of Order 92-078 changing the road name of Kingfisher to Kingfisher Circle, #7, signature of Development Agreement for Terry & Evie Rasmussen on a parcel zoned MUA-10/LM at 17365 Knight Road; #8, chair signature of liquor license renewals for Bend Speedee Mart, Wood Mark Bowl, LaPine Book Store, LaPine Inn, and M.J.'s Terrebonne Tavern; #9, appointment of Don Hamon and Ellis Waterston to the Children and Youth Services Commission; and #10, extension to October 19, 1992, of closing on land sale to Rusty Ertle for property at 9th and Reed Market. THROOP: Move approval of consent agenda items 1-10. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. DECISION ON ORDINANCE 92-048 ON REALIGNMENT OF BROOKSWOOD BLVD Before the Board was the decision on Ordinance 92-048 concerning a Plan Amendment to move the location of Brookswood Boulevard on the Bend/Deschutes County Transportation Plan Map. Chairman Maudlin said he testimony from someone in that this road go forward. PAGE 1 MINUTES: 7/22/92 had just received one letter of Deschutes River Woods requesting 0119-0040 Larry Rice went over a map with the Board which covered the area from where Brookswood Boulevard would connect with Powers Road and then the Bend Parkway on the North and into Deschutes River Woods on the South. As part of the Bend Parkway project, Deschutes County had committed to building Powers Road to Highway 97. The MRCIP has scheduled the construction of Powers Road in 1993-94 fiscal year and that County was currently purchasing the right of way for the construction. The section of Brookswood Blvd. which would connect with Lodgepole was scheduled for 1993. The piece which was now shown as Cyprus would require the purchase of an additional 10 -feet of right of way and was scheduled for construction in 1995-96. Commissioner Throop asked if Cyprus would be renamed Brookswood and Mr. Rice said it would. Mr. Rice continued that the segment under consideration by the Board at this meeting started at the school district property and went south. The consulting engineers for the school district came up with two routes for consideration by Public Works. Public Works recommended the route being proposed in the ordinance since it affected fewer property owners. The curves were designed so that traffic could go 45 mph which would probably be the posted speed of that road. At the south end, the proposed alignment would connect with Crow Road which eventually turned into Baker Road and went out to Highway 97. The interchange at the Baker/Hwy 97 interchange would be built in the summer of 1993. The portion of the road from the school property south would be built in 1994-95. Chairman Maudlin asked whether any dwellings would be in the way of the proposed road alignment. Larry Rice said he would have to defer to someone else on that issue since Tom Blust, County Engineer, was the staff person who had worked on this, and he was out of the state. Commissioner Throop asked why the County would schedule the portion of the road south of the school property one year before doing the Cyprus piece? Mr. Rice said the northern subdivision property owners would be able to go north to Powers Road in 1993 without the need to use the Cyprus section. Commissioner Throop thought it made sense to do both pieces in the same year. Mr. Rice said when the revised MRCIP was scheduled for the Board's approval, this issue could be considered. Commissioner Throop said he felt it was a great plan. Chairman Maudlin asked whether there were three alternatives submitted by Hickman Williams or only two. Bob Lovlien indicated from the audience that there were only two. Chairman Maudlin asked Ron Richardson if he would come up to the map and point out where his house was located. Mr. Richardson said there were two lots which shared a well. The westerly 7 -acre lot (Lot 3700) was his and it also held the PAGE 2 MINUTES: 7/22/92 01199-0041 well. He felt the recommended option would miss his house and the well but would probably take out the manufactured home in the easterly 5 -acre lot (Lot 3701 owned by the McCoys). He said the other option would have "wiped out" both property owners. Commissioner Throop pointed out that it could be possible to relocate the McCoys' manufactured home to another location on their lot. Larry Rice said he thought from conversations with Tom Blust that the exact location of the road could probably be shifted to avoid taking out any structures, however that there was probably one structure which the County would need to take. He mentioned that the right of way for Powers Road was the most expensive of all the sections of the road link up. Commissioner Throop said he felt they had "threaded the needle pretty well" for an area which was already fairly developed. Chairman Maudlin agreed. Commissioner Throop said he thought the people who owned the larger 10 -acre lot would not have a strong concern about the road alignment if they ending up with two lots when the road was built. Bruce White pointed out that a road crossing a lot did not always result in the creation of two lots. Commissioner Throop asked Bob Lovlien if there was another alternative route which was considered. Bob Lovlien said Hickman Williams identified only two alternatives based upon topography and lot configurations. He did not think that the McCoy manufactured home would be directly impacted by the proposed alignment, however it might be close enough to be objectionable. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion that we accept the route as established with the proviso that an effort be made to work with the McCoys on Lot 3701. THROOP: I'll make that motion and as a part of that motion move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-048. SCHLANGEN: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-048 by title only. SCHLANGEN: Move adoption. THROOP: Second the motion. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 7/22/92 VOTE: THROOP: YES 0119-0042 SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 3. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE 92-053 REGARDING MANUFACTURED HOMES IN REDMOND Before the Board was a public hearing on Ordinance 92-053 which would re -adopt Ordinance 91-012, providing for the placement of manufactured homes in the R-4 zone in the Redmond Urban Area for another year. Kevin Harrison said that at the request of the Board a sunset clause was added to this ordinance which had a repeal date of July 30, 1993. This was added to allow the City of Redmond more time to work on their manufactured housing plan. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing for testimony. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. THROOP: I'll move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-053. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-053 by title only. THROOP: Move adoption. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 4. LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE CONCERNING INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS GUIDELINES Before the Board was a Letter of Agreement with the Oregon Board of Parole concerning intermediate sanctions guidelines. Sue Brewster said that Art Murray, parole and probation, came to her with an agreement in February which the state wanted. Her concern at that time was the County's potential liability for hearings officer's judgements on who should be released and who should be sent back. So they focused on the status of PAGE 4 MINUTES: 7/22/92 0119-0043 the hearings officer, i.e. was he a state employee, county employee, or agent for the Parole Board. They determined there was no clear answer to that question. She spoke with the Attorney General who represented Probation and Parole, and they settled on this language because it didn't mean a lot. If there was a disagreement, it would have to be litigated. This contract covered the broader issue of supervision of parolees and not just the actions of the Hearings Officer. Their concern was what happened when a parolee who was being supervised did something to make the County liable. Chairman Maudlin pointed out that the language said the County was responsible for the acts of parolees. Rick Isham said the reason for this program was that state parole was incapable or unable to provide sanction beds for parole violators. Without sanctions there would be no program. It was originally described as a pilot program to provide local sanctions for parolees. He did not understand that it was going to become "the" sanctions program for all parolees. The Hearings Officer plugged them into a matrix and in almost all cases could only determined what the local sanction would be, because of the unavailability of state sanctions. He wasn't saying that the program was a bad program, however he was concerned that the County would be taking on an area of liability which the County didn't want. Chairman Maudlin said the State was saying they would not take the violators back, but they would not accept any liability for any actions of the parolees. Rick Isham pointed out that these parolee were not limited to only those people who had committed crimes in Deschutes County. These people were from all over the state, under state supervision. Art Murray was a state employee, however Deschutes County was an Option 1 county. He guaranteed the Board that if this agreement were signed with its current language, it would be litigated later because neither side knew what it meant. He felt both sides should sit down and determine who was responsible if a parolee committed a crime while on electronic monitoring. In negotiations with the state, Sue Brewster had been unable to get a clear answer from them on this issue. Rick Isham said he had talked with John Jones from Washington County, which was also an Option 1 county, and he said this agreement did not come to him for review. The agreement had been written as if it were to be signed off by the Department. The Deschutes County Community Corrections Department sent it to Legal Counsel for review because they recognized it needed to be reviewed at a higher level. Chairman Maudlin pointed out that the original agreement was signed back in March by the Community Corrections Director, and the language in it was worse than in this agreement. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 7/22/92 0119-0044 Sue Brewster said that when she talked with the Attorney General's office, they were adamant and wouldn't agree to any other language but what they proposed. Commissioner Throop asked what the consequences would be if the Board wasn't willing to accept the proposed language. Chairman Maudlin said the County could go back to Option 3, however that was not a good option since the County had a lot of money invested and had a good program. Rick Isham said the only option the County would have with parole violators would be local sanctions. Rick Isham said he had originally recommended that the indemnification paragraph be deleted, however the state said they would not accept the agreement with this paragraph. He said it was still his recommendation since there was no legal requirement that there be an indemnification paragraph. Commissioner Throop asked what would happen if the Board signed it without the indemnification language and sent it to the state. Rick Isham said "the ball would be in their court." He said he would look at the language in the overall biennial agreement, but he didn't think it had this problem. He said the County did not have the authority to implement the sanctions in the absence of an agreement and the existing agreement expired at the end of September. He recommended that if the Board wanted to modify this agreement, the indemnity language should be deleted so the agreement could be signed and sent back to the State. We would notify the state that the County had deleted the paragraph because it didn't help and created confusion. He would also state that Deschutes County felt that responsibility for negligent acts by the hearings officers, state officers employed in the county system, and bad acts by the parolee with local sanctions should be specified in the agreement. He felt that at the end of this biennium, the County should take a hard look at the County's liability under Option 1. The state was considering wholesale changes in the parole and probation system, since the state system was being basically dismantled. Chairman Maudlin said the County might want to consider giving the state the six-month notice that we want to change from Option 1. It was agreed that there needed to be a meeting with Dennis Maloney, Roland Gangstee and Gary Giersdorf before proceeding. Commissioner Throop asked if Chairman Maudlin was proposing that the paragraph in question be deleted from the agreement, the Board sign the document and send it to the State, and also send them six -months notice in case the County decided to change options. Chairman Maudlin said yes, after meeting with the department heads. Commissioner Throop said he felt that was a good suggestion, and Rick Isham agreed. PAGE 6 MINUTES: 7/22/92 0.19-0045 Rick Isham pointed out that one of the premises upon which the County went option 1 was that there would not be reductions in revenues from the state, and "all bets are off now because of Ballot Measure 5." MAUDLIN: We delete that paragraph, sign the agreement and send it back and then meet with all the department heads as soon as possible. SCHLANGEN: So moved. THROOP: I'll second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 5. ORDINANCE 92-054 CONCERNING EMERGENCY HOURS OF OPERATION Before the Board was consideration of Ordinance 92-054 extending the emergency hours of operation for on additional fiscal year. The old ordinance covered the period from October 1, 1991, to June 30, 1992. THROOP: I'll move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-054. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-054 by title only. SCHLANGEN: Move adoption. THROOP: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 6. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board were accounts payable vouchers in the amounts of $23,799.32 for last fiscal year bills and $31,048.98 for this weeks bills. SCHLANGEN: Move approval upon review. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 7/22/92 7. M. THROOP: Second the motion. 0119-0046 VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TOM HARMON Before the Board was signature of a Development Agreement for Tom Harmon for his LaPine Industrial Park property. THROOP: I'll move approval of Development Agreement. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES GENE CARSEY REQUEST FOR BUSINESS LICENSE FOR FUNNY FARM Chairman Maudlin said the Hearings Officer's decision allowed the Funny Farm to operate for one year without a water system or a septic system, however, Community Development would not approve their second hand store business license because they didn't have a septic system. Karen Green said the state business license form required that the County sign off that all planning, environmental health, and building requirements had been met. They had signed off on planning subject to the limitations submitted to them in writing, and they had signed off for building subject to getting occupancy permits and meeting all of the code requirements for that. However, Roger Everett, Environmental Health Director, declined to sign off because he could not certify that they would ever have a septic system approval. He declined to sign off until the site evaluation was approved, and that site evaluation would take place some time this week. The sanitarian who did the site evaluation would report to Mr. Everett, and he would sign off, presumedly, if they determined that a septic system could be sited on the property. If that were the case, the business license issue would be resolved, however, she felt there would be "continuing issues with the hearings officer's decision and their compliance with it." PUBLIC HEARING: DESCHUTES COUNTY PERIODIC REVIEW ORDER Before the Board was a public hearing on the Deschutes County Periodic Review Order: Resolution 92-062 adopting the Final Periodic Review Order for PL -20 and Title 18; Ordinance 92-051 amending PL -20 to amend goals and policies as required by periodic review; and Ordinance 92-052 amending PL -20 to adopt Goal 5 Analysis for various Goal 5 resources. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 7/22/92 0119-004' Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing for testimony and asked for a staff report. Catherine Morrow said the County received its periodic review notice for the Department of Land Conservation and Development in 1987. The County submitted a proposed periodic review order in 1989, and DLCD commented on it in August of 1990. The County revised that proposed order based on DLCD's comments, brought it up to date on changes since 1989, and removed the Goal 5 ESEE findings and decision from the periodic review order and placed them in a separate ordinance. Before the Board today was the final periodic review order document, Resolution 92-062 which would adopt the periodic review final order, and Ordinance 92-051 which would adopt the amendments to PL -20 (Comprehensive Plan) which were specified in the periodic review order to comply with periodic review factors. The specific factors which required amendments to the comprehensive plan were Factor 1: change in circumstances and Factor 3: response to new and amended state agencies plans and programs. The third item was Ordinance 92-052 which adopted the inventories for Goal 5 resources in ESEEs, and ESEE decisions for areas of special concern, ecological and scientifically significant natural areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, energy sources, and open space and scenic resources. She felt there was one addition which needed to be made to Ordinance 92-052 which was to add a policy for the areas of special concern which were inventoried as 1(b) --private land areas which were in the original comprehensive plan but where there was not sufficient information to go through the ESEE process and make a decision. She had drafted a policy for that purpose. Chairman Maudlin asked how these sites get designated as areas of special concern. Ms. Morrow said they were mapped and listed in the original comprehensive plan in 1973. She had reviewed all of them and some were designated as open space conservation and some weren't. Some of them were federal sites, so she segregated out the private sites from the federal sites. Bruce White said they also had a comprehensive plan policy which was not reflected in these ordinances which would clarify the landscape management policy. It would be Policy #1 of the open space comprehensive plan policies. When the Board adopted the landscape management package in April, this policy was less than clear, so Ms. Morrow drafted some language to clarify it. He hadn't decided whether this should be in a separate ordinance, since it was not reflective of the tasks which DLCD had outlined for the County. Ms. Morrow said the open space policies originally identified certain roads, and when the Landscape Management amendments PAGE 9 MINUTES: 7/22/92 0119.0048 were done, there were some amendments to the policies to add scenic waterways. The final amended language was redundant to another policy and wasn't very clear, so she drafted some language which listed the rivers and streams which would be in the LM zone as policy number one and policy number two already listed the roads. Bruce White said he wanted to discuss Exhibit E to 92-052, the wild and scenic rivers landscape management ESEE. In 1986, as part of the staff report for the river study, there were also some ESEEs done for specific river segments. He felt this was the area where the County would be challenged by Oregonians in Actions on their appeal of the County's landscape management zone. He wanted to go back and compare Exhibit E to the findings and ESEEs which were done in the 1986 staff report to see whether Exhibit E was necessary. One of the issues in the appeal might be that the County's ESEE was not specific enough. If the 1986 report was sufficient and acknowledged, then the County's defense would be that the County already had an acknowledged ESEE and didn't need to adopt a new one. Chairman Maudlin asked why the sensitive bird and mammal habitat map and the big game habitat area map wouldn't be brought to the Board for approval until the following week. Ms. Morrow said the periodic review order was written as if the wildlife package had been signed, so if the Board did not approve the wildlife package with the changes recommended regarding destination resorts, then this final periodic review order couldn't be adopted. Commissioner Throop asked why the Board wouldn't want to sign the wildlife package? Chairman Maudlin said the map had never been adopted or agreed on because of the delay of the destination resort decision. Bruce White said it had always been the intent to adopt the wildlife package, and felt the only issue being deferred by the Board was how that would impact the destination resort process. He felt the Board intended to adopt the wildlife package and then defer the question of the effect on destination resort siting. Commissioner Throop said he didn't remember any discussion about deferring the wildlife package. Chairman Maudlin said that during the decision meeting he had suggested adopting the map which was made in Goal 8 in 1984. Commissioner Throop said that comment might have been made, but it wasn't the conclusion of the Board. Chairman Maudlin and Commissioner Schlangen said there was no conclusion made by the Board on the map issue. Ms. Morrow said after reviewing the minutes, she felt that when Commissioner Schlangen made the motion to change the text in the wildlife area combining zone to adopt a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that said that no applications for PAGE 10 MINUTES: 7/22/92 0119-0049 destination resorts would be accepted in the wildlife area combining zone until the Goal 8 mapping process was complete, the Board was directing staff to incorporate that language into the wildlife area combining zone and to prepare the policy for the comprehensive plan which had been done. Then to prepare findings to adopt the ordinance and the maps. No specific vote was taken on adopting the maps, however, it was her clear understanding before she went on vacation, that when the findings were prepared, the Board intended that the package would be adopted with those changes which were proposed and voted on. Commission Schlangen said again that the Board took no action on the mapping. Commissioner Throop said the Board took no specific action on the maps, but directed staff to make the changes requested by the Board and to bring the package back, while making it clear that the package would then be adopted. Bruce White pointed out that in order to complete period review, the wildlife area maps had to be adopted. He felt the Board had been struggling with the question of "now that we have these maps, what do we make of them with respect to destination resorts." He said the Board decided to defer that decision, and decided on comprehensive plan language that no application would be accepted in these areas until such time as the question of how to resolve these conflicts had been resolved. He suggested that the Board would not have needed that language if they had not decided to adopt the maps. Chairman Maudlin said it was very clear that destination resorts could not be sited in wildlife area combining zones. Ms. Morrow said the initial proposal from the Planning Commission was that destination resorts not be permitted in the wildlife zones. She understood the Board asked that destination resorts be taken off from the list of excluded activities in the wildlife area combining zone and then add another section stating no applications on destination resorts would be accepted in the wildlife areas until the decision on destination resorts was made sometime before December 31, 1992. Bruce White mentioned again that there would not have been any need for that language if the map weren't going to be adopted. The Board would have to decided before the end of the year what affect the wildlife map had on destination resorts. Chairman Maudlin said he understood that the maps were drawn in Goal 8 to show where destination resorts could be sited. Commissioner Throop said the wildlife map was not a destination resort map. He said the Board would make a decision after periodic review and the farm study about whether or not destination resorts would be allowed on lands mapped for wildlife and, if so, under what conditions. Bruce White said there could be a separate map for purposes of PAGE 11 MINUTES: 7/22/92 0119-0050 destination resorts since state law did not require that the County use the big wildlife map and there was a smaller map in the handbook. State law allowed local refinements. Chairman Maudlin said he understood that this periodic review resolution and the accompanying ordinances could not be adopted until the Board adopted a wildlife area map since it was included as a portion of the periodic review package. Ms. Morrow said it was not specifically included in the ordinances or the resolution, however in order to complete the County's requirements under periodic review, the County had to address the Goal 5 wildlife resource and that whole process of the mapping and the inventory of the antelope, etc. was how the County had dealt with the Goal 5 wildlife issue. There were a whole series of ESEEs for each of those wildlife species and wetland, etc. which was part of that wildlife package which was required to complete periodic review. The periodic review order before the Board said that the wildlife package had been completed, so it could not be signed until it was completed. If the periodic review order was submitted to DLCD without the wildlife package being completed, DLCD would reject it. Bruce White mentioned that if the Board decided it didn't want to adopt a map at this time, and he wasn't advocating that position, an incomplete periodic review order would be submitted, and he had no idea what the state's response would be or how quickly they could respond. Chairman Maudlin asked why the wildlife package had to be completed while the irrigated farm lands issue was being deferred until later in the year. George Read said the County had received approval from LCDC to defer the farm lands issue until later, and irrigated lands were not a part of the periodic review and were a local decision. He said the County had decided to do positive mapping, so even if the wildlife maps were adopted, the staff would be positively mapping areas where destination resorts could be sited which could include wildlife areas if the Board chose to do so and if not prohibited by the Goal 8 requirements. In his opinion, adopting the wildlife map had no affect on the subsequent decision by the Board on where destination resorts could be sited, and whether they could be sited on the new wildlife areas not specifically excluded by the state. This would require an amendment to the plan to spell out why that was being done. Chairman Maudlin asked if the Board adopted the wildlife area combining zone map as it was prepared, could the Board leave the deletion of destination resorts from the ordinance and also delete it in section (c) so that a decision could be made to site destination resorts in wildlife area combining zones. George Read said it could be done with the necessary findings and by changing the ESEEs to explain why the County decided to PAGE 12 MINUTES: 7/22/92 do it. Bruce White pointed out tl for the interim period. Chairman asking these question because he Board to understand the options a Ms. Morrow said that if the Board c allow destination resorts in all County had mapped but not in the e the destination resort map could decision. Commissioner Throop p decision being made now was which Bruce White thought the decision 1 need to make was whether the Coun wildlife areas the same or some d going to be treated differently, th justify why these areas were being Morrow gave an example of only al: resort uses in the wildlife area. that the wildlife map should ind. 0119-0051 at this could not be done Maudlin said he was just vanted the members of the vailable on these issues. acided that they wanted to wildlife areas which the >pecially sensitive areas, be drawn to reflect that )inted out that the only treas were wildlife areas. he Board would eventually :y was going to treat all efferently. If some were �n the County would have to treated differently. Ms. .owing certain destination �hairman Maudlin suggested .cate the sensitive zones mapped in 1984 within the wildlife area combining zones so that the Board could know exactly where they were. Bruce White pointed out that this mapping was already in the handbook. Ms. Morrow said it would be very simply to create an overlay for both the destination resort and the wildlife area map. Bruce White wanted to point out that by adopting the wildlife map, the Board was signifying that those areas were a significant Goal 5 resource. Previously the Board had determined that in all wildlife areas, the County was not going to positively map destination resorts, therefore, adopting the wildlife maps had some significance for the Board's deliberations on destination resort siting when that issue was taken up before the end of the year. Chairman Maudlin asked when the Board wanted to undertake adoption of the wildlife maps and periodic review documents. Ms. Morrow said the County had until the end of September to adopt the final periodic review order. At the work session, it had been suggested that the wildlife package be signed next Wednesday and the periodic review order signed the following Wednesday. Since Commissioner Throop was going to be on vacation the following week, it was decided to do both in the same meeting. The staff said the earlier the periodic review order was signed the better, because it would close the record for appeals that much quicker. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing and announced that both these issues would be taken up by the Board on August 5, 1992, at 9:30 a.m. PAGE 13 MINUTES: 7/22/92 DATED this day of Commissioners of Deschutes ( A E Recording Secretary PAGE 14 MINUTES: 7/22/92 0119-0052 1992, by the Board of nt Orego . Tom Throop, C issioner Nancy Pope 1 gen, Commissio er DidMaud in, Ch irman