Loading...
2001-44-Minutes for Meeting January 03,2001 Recorded 1/25/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 44 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02001-44 * Vol -Page Printed: 01/26/2001 16:56:09 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Jan. 25, 2001; 8:13 a.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 17 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KE U CHED J 292001 MICROf FEB 2001 01 JAN 25 AM 6: 13 I 1 Q,;U , COUNTY CLPK Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 -, Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING Dennis R. Luke Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Chair Tom DeWolf opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. Present were Commissioners Tom DeWolf, Dennis Luke and Mike Daly. Also present were Marty Wynne, Treasurer; Jeanine Faria, Finance Department; Sheriff Les Stiles and Sue Brewster, Sheriffs Office; George Read, Damian Syrnyk, Kevin Harrison, Chris Schmoyer, Geralyn Haas and Dave Leslie, Community Development. In addition, present were Rick Isham, Legal Counsel; Susan Mayea, Dave Anderson and Ted Schassberger, Commissioners' Office; Ric Ingham, Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council; and representatives of the media. 1. A Brief Musical Presentation was Given by "A Scottish Heart" - Featuring Traditional Irish and Scottish Music. This presentation was appreciated and enjoyed by all attendees. 2. Before the Board was the Appointment of Tom DeWolf as Chair of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. LUKE: I move that Tom DeWolf be appointed Chair of the Commission for calendar year 2001. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: DALY: DEWOLF Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 1 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower Quality Services Performed with Pride 3. Before the Board was the Appointment of Mike Daly as Vice Chair of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. LUKE: I move that Mike Daly be appointed Vice Chair of the Commission for calendar year 2001. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was the Appointment of Dennis Luke as Budget Officer of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. DEWOLF: I move that Dennis Luke be appointed Budget Officer for calendar year 2001. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: DEWOLF 5. Citizen Input None was offered. Aye. Chair votes yes. 6. Commissioner Input (on a lighter note). A. Commissioner Daly asked that former Commissioner Linda Swearingen as Manager of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Expo Center. This died for lack of a second. (Meant in a joking manner). B. Chair DeWolf then read Resolution 2000-066, absolving Recording Secretary Bonnie Baker of any involvement in the creation of this Resolution. It was a Resolution acknowledging Commissioner Dennis Luke's desire to renounce his loyalty to the Oregon State Beavers and asked to be made an honorary University of Oregon Duck. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 2 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower Chair DeWolf then read the Resolution: Whereas Dennis Luke secretly wanted to be a U of O Duck all his life; whereas deep down he regrets having attended OSU, and wishes his parents would have let him attend the great school of U of O; whereas, while Dennis' parents recognized that he probably wasn't able to adequately deal with all of the intellectual freedom, parties, long hair and hippies at the U of O; and whereas Dennis has always been envious of the winning athletic tradition of the U of O, now, therefore, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners hereby acknowledges its support of making Dennis Luke an honorary U of O Duck, dated December 27, 2000. Chair DeWolf indicated that somehow Linda Swearingen managed to get Dennis and the Recording Secretary to sign it. Commissioner Luke denied knowing that he signed this Resolution. C. Chair DeWolf then presented to Marty Wynne a pin acknowledging his five years of service to Deschutes County. He further stated that, per ORS 208.080, the County Treasurer will now "show the Commissioners the money" at least once a year, with today being the day. Mr. Wynne was not adequately prepared to do so at this time. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2001- 001, Submitting to the Voters in a County -wide Election a Three-year Split Rate Serial Levy to Fund Sheriff Services. Sheriff Les Stiles and Sue Brewster explained that before the Board was a Resolution to send to the voters for a continuation of the current Sheriff levy beginning July 1, 2001, to be voted upon on March 13, 2001. They indicated there would be no change in the rate. Chair DeWolf stated the County had a major accounting firm with an office located in Eugene to assist in the justification that the rate split is an appropriate one. This is the rate between incorporated cities that have their own police services and those who live outside of those incorporated areas that use the Sheriffs patrol as their police service. LUKE: I move approval of this Resolution. DEWOLF: Second. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 3 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of a Decision Whether to Hear Appeal No. A-00-15, an Appeal of the County Land Use Hearings Officer's Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. CU -00-92 (a Request to Establish a Surface Mining Zone on Laidlaw Butte - Applicant: Tumalo Irrigation District). Damian Syrnyk clarified that two appeals have been received; Appeals A-00-15 and A-00-16. They are both appeals of the same decision. Those appealing the decision are Tumalo Irrigation District and Cellular One. He indicated a decision needs to be made as to whether to hear the appeals. He also said that if the Commissioners decide to hear the appeals, they must decide whether to hear them on the record that was before Hearings Officer Karen Green, or whether to hear them de novo (as new, considering all information that had been before the Hearings Officer as well as any new evidence and testimony that is submitted). He stated that in both appeals both Tumalo Irrigation District and Cellular One have requested that the Commissioners hear the appeals de novo. They believe that both parties would have some substantial rights prejudiced if the hearings were not heard, or were not heard de novo. Commissioner Luke said that in the appeal itself there are some questions about these criteria being put upon them and no others. Mr. Syrnyk gave some brief background on the application, which would establish some wireless telecommunications facilities on the summit of Laidlaw Butte. It included two sets of equipment that would be used differently by both Tumalo Irrigation District and Cellular One. TID proposed to establish an antenna and transmission equipment for the purposes of being able to communicate with its field crew, as a part of the function of the irrigation district. Cellular One was proposing to locate their antennas on the same sixty -foot wood pole, for the purposes of being able to transmit and receive cellular phone calls as a part of their network of sites. In doing so, there were several sets of criteria that the application had to meet. The Hearings Officer considered both uses of this facility within those criteria. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 4 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower Mr. Syrnyk continued. One of the criteria, contained within the language of the surface mining zone, is that the applicant has to demonstrate the necessity of siting this in a surface mining zone in order to provide its public service. This language is something that the County modeled and included in the surface mining zone based on similar language contained within the EFU zone. There is some case law that has been incorporated in statute for looking at certain things like wireless telecommunications facilities, sewage treatment plants, power substations, and so on in the EFU zone. One of the things that an applicant for that type of facility has to do is demonstrate that it is necessary to place it there versus some other location that is not being protected for the purposes of farming. The County had adopted this language for the surface mining zone because that zone was created and applied to properties located around the County to protect mineral and aggregate resources. The Hearings Officer had relied on those criteria to give her guidance on how to interpret "necessary for providing public service". Those criteria that she had cited from ORS Chapter 215, Section 275 were passed and adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 1999. The County applies those criteria when looking at applications in the EFU zone. The Hearings Officer has raised a legitimate issue in terms of how she interpreted it because in the County's surface mining zones, the County never took what's called an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3. While the County protects surface mining uses in those zones that deal primarily with the extraction of mineral and aggregate resources, it still allows farm uses as defined by statute. She questioned whether the County should apply those criteria as part of the staff report, but also informed the applicant that these would apply since Goal 3 uses are still protected under the statute. Chair Tom DeWolf then stated that Mr. Syrnyk is stating that the Hearings Officer made a legitimate decision based upon the Code that exists today. Mr. Syrnyk agreed. He further stated that the applicant is also correct in that the applicant was unaware that both it (TID) and Cellular One would have to address those criteria as part of their burden of proof; and that they were notified of this actually when they got their decision from the Hearings Officer. Commissioner Luke said that it appears they were notified of criteria of which they had no knowledge after they offered their original testimony. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 5 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower Chair DeWolf asked if that had anything to do with the fact that the pole was constructed without going through any permitting process. Mr. Syrnyk said that is entirely a code enforcement issue. Chair DeWolf said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and if the law exists and the people who are taking the action aren't aware of the law, how would that make them any less subject to it. Mr. Syrnyk stated that in this situation, when representatives of Cellular One were preparing the application, they might have relied upon some older decisions that the County had in looking at the surface mining zone. They may not have been aware that this would be coming up as part of their review. Commissioner Luke asked if this is something told to them verbally or if there is some kind of written document detailing what is expected. Mr. Syrnyk replied that they have criteria that are gone over with them that are from the Code, and that a lot of the application requirements are also in the Code. The Hearings Officer addressed those as a part of the application. Commissioner Luke reiterated that there is nowhere that the applicants were told they had to address these criteria at the beginning. He asked if the Hearings Officer or Planning had the opportunity to dismiss any other applications because of this. Mr. Syrnyk said he didn't believe they had. He stated that in recent applications where people had made an application in the EFU zone, they hadn't addressed this and they were notified in writing to address these criteria. He recalls when he met with representatives of Cellular One before the application was submitted, he went through the criteria for this type of facility, and had not considered that even though the property is still zoned surface mining, they would also need to address the statutory criteria. Commissioner Luke asked if the thirty-foot pole was still in place, would they have had to address these same criteria. If Cellular One wanted to just attach to the thirty-foot pole, would they have had to address this criteria? Or would our co -locating statute kick in, since the County encourages co -locating on a pole? Mr. Syrnyk stated that the co -location language in the Code applies to poles that currently exist. Commissioner Luke asked if the thirty-foot pole had not been taken out and replaced with a sixty -foot pole, and an application came in from Cellular One to co -locate on that pole, then you wouldn't have gone through these criteria. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 6 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower Mr. Syrnyk said that under the EFU zone they would have to do that, since under the wireless telecommunications ordinance, the opportunities for co -location are available only outside of the resource zones. In rural residential or multiple use agricultural zones, someone could co -locate without a conditional use permit. But if the County is dealing with a resource zone, such as forest zones or surfacing mining, a conditional use permit is required, and these criteria would have to be addressed as well. Chair DeWolf then stated that perhaps we didn't inform them of the requirements upon which the Hearings Officer denied their application. Kevin Harrison then explained that the appellants claim, as a part of their appeal, that they would be prejudiced upon if the Board did not hear their appeal because they were not informed of these criteria at the time that they made their application. The Board has complete discretion as to whether to hear this appeal. Chair DeWolf asked if it is true, that they are correct. Mr. Harrison answered that he believes it is true. Mr. Harrison said the Board can either hear or not hear the appeal; and if they choose not to hear the appeal, the appellants can continue their appeal to LUBA; or they can let the Hearings Officer's decision stand; or they can withdraw their applications and start over. Chair DeWolf stated that what is most troubling to him about this situation is the fact the shorter pole was replaced by a taller pole without going through any permit process. He said that anything having to do with height in this County gets peoples' attention. He explained he has a difficult time believing, after all the controversy surrounding the golf nets, that TID would think they could double the size of the pole and go above the treeline without being noticed. He stated that Community Development needs to have a checklist for those types of things to avoid this type of issue in the future. Commissioner Luke asked if the application was resubmitted, how much time would be necessary to complete the process. Mr. Harrison said that because of the history of this particular facility, it would probably go back to the Hearings Officer; and it would take from six to ten weeks for a decision to be reached. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 7 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower Chair DeWolf said he was inclined not to hear this because it seems as if the appellants didn't get the answer they wanted from the Hearings Officer and therefore would look at amending or fixing something in order to succeed here. He stated that the process is really bothersome to him. He said he believes local decisions ought to be made locally, and doesn't like the idea of it going to LUBA. Commissioner Luke explained that it does sometimes happen where a new code is not listed in the County's criteria nor is it on a list somewhere. It gets a little tough when you require people to conform to something that they don't know about. It's a tough call. He said that to him it appears, based on the Hearings Officer's decision, that if the applicants would have checked three or four other sites and listed the criteria as to why they weren't acceptable, that she might have approved the application. He went on to say that it wouldn't have taken very long for the applicant to do those studies. A general discussion then occurred regarding whether the applicants have gotten together with the neighbors, the possibility of camouflage, compromising within the community to protect the visual corridor but still allowing for the health and safety of the community, the balance of the technology and the area's scenic beauty. Mr. Harrison said that as far as the requirements to protect the visual corridor, the Hearings Officer's findings said that the facility met those requirements. This has not been contested by anyone. The opponents to the facility have not appealed this decision. The findings the Hearings Officer made regarding visual impacts are that this site complies. If the Board decides to hear this appeal, it can be reviewed entirely on the record or it can be heard and reviewed de novo. The appellants have asked that it be heard de novo, but only against those criteria on which the Hearings Officer denied the application. This means the other criteria are out of bounds. George Read clarified the issue regarding ignorance being no excuse. There are laws that must be interpreted through the process, and staff doesn't always know how they will be interpreted. He said the Hearings Officer found that this is very similar to the language in the EFU zone, and since it is so similar and since this area doesn't have an exception, that criteria was used. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 8 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower He said he did not feel this was an unreasonable conclusion, and perhaps the fact that the applicants didn't get to address it could be argued that it was their fault; however, perhaps they should have been told to take a shot at it. Commissioner Daly asked if there were any criteria in the surface mining zone that they had to follow. Mr. Read said there was, and that the language is very similar to what is found in the EFU zone. The findings of the Hearings Officer were that it is so similar that she would look at the EFU zone for guidance in interpreting it. Commissioner Daly asked what similarity was there; from reading the record, it looks as if it wasn't addressed in the SM zone. Mr. Read replied that it was quoted in the decision on page 6, paragraph 2, "is necessary to be sited in the SM zone for the public service to be provided". The EFU zone says, "utility facility necessary for a public service." The criteria are very similar, and because of that she used the definition contained in the statute for the EFU zone. Commissioner Luke asked how far away the closest EFU zone is located to the site. Mr. Read said it was not very far. He stated that the language is very similar, and the Hearings Officer looked to that language for interpretation. The point that Mr. Syrnyk made that it is in the statute really wasn't an issue here; the Hearings Officer was looking at how to interpret what this means. It had been interpreted in the EFU zone and not interpreted in the SM zone, as this is the first application of its kind in an SM zone. Commissioner DeWolf said that was a logical step to take. Mr. Syrnyk said that this is the first application referred to the Hearings Officer for review, and it's the first opportunity she has to interpret the criteria used for this. George Read said there are two things the Commissioners can do. They can choose not to hear this. If the Commissioners choose to hear it, they can hear it on the record, de novo, or - as the applicant requested - hear parts of it de novo but not all of it de novo. If the Commissioners choose to hear it de novo, that's when the criteria kick in that the applicant was somehow substantially prejudiced by this decision. Chair DeWolf stated that from his perspective if it were to be decided on the record, he wouldn't hear it; because on the record, he feels that the Hearings Officer is right. If said if it is heard de novo, he would want to go all the way, and wouldn't want to limit it. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 9 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower Commissioner Luke said that George Read made a good point, that the opponents didn't question or appeal anything else in the Hearings officer's findings. Chair DeWolf said that he wouldn't have thought of that, of appealing a specific portion of the decision. He explained that we have applicants here who feel they have been prejudiced by not having enough knowledge, even though the information exists; they weren't made aware of it. Commissioner Daly asked if the people appealing the decision have legal counsel. Chair DeWolf said that Tumalo Irrigation District does. Commissioner Daly clarified that he wondered if the people interested in the visual impact have legal counsel. Chair DeWolf replied that they are not a party to this situation at this point. The big issue in the community is visual blight, not the technicality of the applicant getting all the information. He said he is trying to be sensitive to that larger issue. (Remarks from an audience member off the microphone then occurred. His remarks cannot be deciphered.) Chair DeWolf stated that he would prefer that this application goes away and another application comes in under the proper process. Commissioner Luke said that could be done if it isn't heard. Chair DeWolf said that it might then go to LUBA; Commissioner Luke said that it would probably be much cheaper and quicker to reapply. Commissioner Daly said he hated the idea of restarting the application process. He stated that he would like to hear it de novo. Commissioner Luke said that if Commissioner Daly thinks this will shorten the time, he is mistaken; there is a lot of time and work involved in hearing an appeal to a decision de novo. Chair DeWolf stated that he feels no matter what the Commissioners do today, there is a good chance that it could end up at LUBA; and in his opinion one side or the other will appeal the decision, whatever it may be. Commissioner Luke asked George Read if the opponents in the Hearings Officer's hearing have standing to go to LUBA on the other criteria, or just the criteria of the other site. George Read said that is an interesting legal question, and he believes they would be limited only to the issues in the decision. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 10 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower Chair DeWolf said if the Commissioners open it up de novo, then everybody can appeal on everything. That's where the de novo on just limited issues or the whole thing makes a big difference. He stated that if the Commissioners deny hearing the appeal, he hopes that the applicants would go through the process as it is currently established. They would then have the opportunity to meet with the neighbors and try to address some of their concerns about the visual aspects. At that point they may have an application that addresses the opponents' concerns, the Hearings Officer's concerns, and it's a whole lot smoother and ultimately probably a lot cheaper. Commissioner Daly said that he recalled that a part of the requirements are that the applicants contact the neighbors regarding the application. Damian Syrnyk replied that is correct, and a neighborhood meeting had been held. Chair DeWolf said that the pole was erected before the neighbors were contacted. Commissioner Luke said that he understands it hasn't been used yet. Commissioner Daly said that it seems to him that what Chair DeWolf is concerned about has already been done. Chair DeWolf said that the Hearings Officer stated that the applicants have not demonstrated the necessity for establishing the proposed facility in the SM zone. They had also not shown why the needs of the communications users, Tumalo Irrigation District and Cellular One, could not have been met through the use of multiple poles at a shorter height. Those are the issues upon which she denied this. Damian Syrnyk said that both of the appellants requested that this be heard de novo, and limit the review to those items that were denied. That is the basis for staff s recommendation of hearing it de novo, and limiting review to those items. (An audience member then commented off the microphone. These comments cannot be understood.) George Read explained that there is another issue to examine here. One of the reasons for the denial was a criteria that had to do with visual impact, and that they needed to analyze all of the other sites and prove that this is one with least visual impact. He said he doesn't believe staff s recommendation does not mean that visual impact isn't an issue, even if taking what the appeal would be based upon. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 11 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower The criteria are that the applicant considers other sites that might have less visual impact to the neighbors. It isn't just that; there are some visual components in the denial. The issue was that they hadn't adequately addressed other possible sites. Kevin Harrison agreed with Mr. Read's comments. Commissioner Luke said that it would be his preference to hear this de novo, based upon the disapproval criteria. Hearing it on this limited basis does address the visual aspects and the need. Chair DeWolf stated that he would probably vote against that; that the only way the Commissioners would have control over the whole issue would be to hear it totally de novo. This is the first hearing of its type, and there are a lot of policy issues at stake. Commissioner Daly said that he tends to agree with Commissioner Luke; he feels the limited de novo hearing would be appropriate and would cover all of the issues that are important here. At this time, Damian Syrnyk read the criteria once again for the Commissioners. He explained that both applicants have agreed to restart the 150 -day clock beginning on the date Community Development accepted their appeals. LUKE: I move that we hear this appeal de novo according to staff recommendation, limiting it to the new evidence and testimony that is directed to the three criteria. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes no. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2001-003, Changing the Name of Longspur Drive to Turnstone Road (in the Eagle Crest Area). LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 12 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2001-004, Changing the Name of a Portion of Widgeon Road to Eagle Crest Boulevard (Eagle Crest Area). LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2001-001, Allowing Valuation Change Property Tax Refunds. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council and Deschutes County for Completion of the Indicators/Database Project. Dave Anderson explained that this is for a project for which the Community Investment Board provided an $8,5000 grant, an amount that was matched by a number of regional partners, with funding also coming in from various County departments. The total budget for this project is now approximately $22,000, which will allow the indicators/database work group funding to establish a website with regional information, including statistics and demographics, based on ten regional benchmarks for each of three different sectors - environmental, social and economic. It is hoped that this will be utilized by policymakers, such as the Commissioners in each of the region's counties, who require up to date and accurate information that is used consistently throughout the region. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 13 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower The state also has a website with similar information, but locally the effort is to narrow down the benchmarks that are pertinent to this region. LUKE: I would move for Chair signature of this agreement. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Appointment of Commissioner Tom DeWolf as Primary Member to Represent Deschutes County on the Board of Directors of the Central Oregon Intergovern- mental Council for Calendar Year 2001. LUKE: I would move for the appointment of Tom DeWolf to this Council. DALY: Second VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Appointment of Commissioner Dennis Luke as Alternate Member to Represent Deschutes County on the Board of Directors of the Central Oregon Intergovern- mental Council for Calendar Year 2001. DEWOLF: I would move for the appointment of Dennis Luke to this Council as alternate member. DALY: Second VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Bob Sherman to the Panoramic Access Special Road District Outside of Sisters, with a Term Ending December 31, 2003. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 14 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 16. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Re -appointing Dick Deatherage to Lazy River Special Road District, with a Term Ending December 31, 2003. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 17. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Linda L. West to Bend Cascade View Estates Tract 2 Special Road District, with a Term Ending December 31, 2003. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 18. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: A. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Amendment #3 of an Agreement between Deschutes County and H.G.E., Inc. for Engineering Services Related to the La Pine Water System. LUKE: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 15 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower B. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Lauri Miller to the Deschutes County Budget Committee. This item was postponed pending further evaluation of the criteria used to select Budget Committee members. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 18. Before the Board was the Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $167.66. LUKE: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. Before the Board was the Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $2,962.54. LUKE: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 20. Before the Board was the Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $444,318.15. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 16 of 17 Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Being no further items to address, Chair Tom De Wolf adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m. DATED this 3rd Day of January 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Board Meeting Including Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal Of Hearings Officer's Denial to Tumalo Irrigation District Application re: Laidlaw Butte Telecommunications Tower Tom De , Chair D nnis R. Luke, Com - issioner Mic ael M. Daly, Vommissioner Page 17 of 17 Wednesday, January 3, 2001