Loading...
2002-829-Minutes for Meeting April 24,2002 Recorded 4/30/2002JT E SH COUNTY OFFICIAL Cik MARY SUE SRPENHOLLOW , COUNTY CLERK 2 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 04/30/2002 08:19:39 AM r Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Woff Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF MEETING Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2002 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tom DeWolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Paul Blikstad, Kevin Harrison, Catherine Morrow, Christy Morgan and George Read, Community Development; Rick Isham and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tammy Credicott, Property Management; Media Representatives Mike Cronin of the Bulletin, Barney Lerten of bendnet. com, and Emily Apel of Z-21 KTVZ; and approximately 25 citizens. Chair Tom DeWolf opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation, Declaring the Observation of National Youth Service Day, April 26 through 28 (Activities to Take Place on April 26). Chair DeWolf read the Proclamation to the audience. LUKE: Move approval DALY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 1 of 21 Pages Quality Services Performed with Pride VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation, Declaring May 2, 2002 Central Oregon Volunteer Appreciation Day Lin Gardner of the Department of Human Services spoke about the volunteers within Deschutes County, and who will be honored for their volunteer efforts at the Central Oregon Volunteer of the Year Award gathering, scheduled for Thursday, May 2. She then invited the Board to attend. Chair DeWolf read the Proclamation, and noted that there are more volunteers in Deschutes County giving their time to various agencies than there are employees working for the County. LUKE: Move approval DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Presentation by the Deschutes Basin Land Trust: "Back to Home Waters". Brad Chalfant, the Director of the Deschutes Basin Land Trust, provided an overview of the goals and duties of the Trust, and gave a slide show of the history and background of the Trust. He explained one of their larger current projects, titled "Back to Home Waters". Fish farms and passage for the fish have been lost over the years, and the members of the Trust are attempting to reestablish these and restore fish to the various tributaries of Squaw Creek, the Crooked River, the Deschutes River, and the Metolius River. Work done years ago changed the hydrology of the rivers and streams, which damaged fish habitat. The Trust is attempting to analyze how feasible it is to restore these areas to a semblance of what they used to be. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 2 of 21 Pages He further explained that they are working with local schools on this, and the efforts of the students has become an important resource in this undertaking. They are also working with private landowners as well as government agencies in this pursuit. Part of what they hope to do is to help restore the forest, as much as possible, to a more natural environment. It is hoped these efforts will accommodate the first sockeye run, to Sun Lake, that has occurred in the state in about forty years. The Crooked River will be a longer project, but they are combining their efforts with those of the watershed councils, government agencies and the tribes of Warm Springs to create something special for the next generation. He indicated his appreciation to Deschutes County for its support. Chair DeWolf said there was a lot of skepticism about function of this group at first, but they have done an admirable job and should be congratulated. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2002- 036, Declaring the Intent of Deschutes County to Transfer Real Property (within Oregon Water Wonderland) to Newberry Area Habitat for Humanity. Tammy Credicott gave a brief overview of the resolution. She said there are three options available in the transfer of this property in regard to the sewer system. One is to deed restrict it until there is a functional community sewer system in place; another is to donate it as -is, as Habitat doesn't plan to build a home until next year; and the third option is to deed restrict it to a certain date or until the sewer system is in place, which ever comes first. It is currently approved for a sand filter system, but the County wants to encourage connections to the sewer system. George Read stated that the district had a vote to improve their sewer system. This would have cost residents a certain rate per month. If they send it to Sunriver, as has been discussed, there is a fear that the cost will go up in the future. The project therefore has stalled, and it may take another vote to finalize it. The existing system is failing, so he anticipates something happening within a year or 18 months. Chair DeWolf said that Habitat seems to be okay with the deed restriction, and if a year from now it needs to be revisited the Board will do so. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 3 of 21 Pages LUKE: Move approval DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2002- 022, Revising the County Room Tax Ordinance to Permit the Tax Administrator to Waive Penalties for Delinquent Room Taxes. Mike Maier gave a brief overview of the ordinance. Rick Isham said Marty Wynne needs this signed in order to meet relatively short timeline, as there are some people affected by this. He further stated that in the past Mr. Wynne has reviewed these as part of his duties as tax administrator; but specific authority is needed for the $10,000 level and above. LUKE: I move first and second reading, by title only, declaring an emergency. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then conducted the first and second readings. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Measure 7 (Continued from March 13); and Discussion of Ordinance No. 2002-017, Regarding Private Property Compensation Procedures. Chair De Wolf said this is to once again be continued, to June S, 2002, 10 a.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 4 of 21 Pages 8. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (Continued from March 27) and Consideration of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2002-001 and Ordinance No. 2002-002, Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the Rural Service Centers of Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton and Millican (to Comply with State Rule regarding Unincorporated Communities). Christy Morgan submitted a few more letters from citizens that had arrived today. This is a continuation of the public hearing on these ordinances. Public hearings and a workshop have been held, and the ordinances have been revised according to the desires of the citizens of the area. Community Development is now proposing three zoning districts instead of two. The primary one is the mixed used district (previously called rural service center zone). That district would be applied to the entire community of Brothers, with the exception of the rest stop; and to the entire communities of Hampton and Millican. In Alfalfa, it will be applied to the two -acre piece that currently allows commercial uses. The uses that are allowed will remain the same, with the exception of Alfalfa, where we have specified that there will be one -acre minimum lot size allowed. In the other communities, it is a 2.5 -acre minimum or, if it is commercial use, it can be as small or big as the need dictates, if all the water and septic standards are met. The other addition is a 150 -foot minimum width requirement for the lots in the commercial area; this was an oversight in the last draft. The second zoning area added is the residential district. That is to meet the requests of the Alfalfa community. Currently what is zone as RS -R5 is now called a residential district, and we're maintaining those five -acre minimum lot sizes. The third district is the open space district; previously it was called the open space and conservation district. It is basically the same. The uses for the Brothers Rest Stop have been moved into the rural service center section of Title 18. All of the applicable codes and requirements are now all within that chapter. LUKE: How many attended the town hall meeting? MORGAN: At least fifty. Also, at that workshop there was a majority who wanted to allow one -acre minimums within the two -acre commercial piece. Since then letters and a petition have indicated they prefer to see it stay a two -acre piece. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 5 of 21 Pages MORGAN: The water users association board had suggested the one -acre is okay, but some of the petitioners are members but don't actively participate in the association. DEWOLF: The difficulty of this petition is that the signers indicate they don't want any zoning or policy changes in the Alfalfa rural service center. We have to make changes to be within state law. It can't be accepted for this reason. LUKE: It was also apparent at the public meeting that many of the people didn't like some of the currently allowed uses. MORGAN: That's correct. The second page of the petition shows what they want, penciled in on the existing ordinance. What they have told me they want is all to stay the same, except the two -acre commercial area. DEWOLF: So it was poorly written. Currently they could have as small as a 6,000 square foot lot. By changing this, we are being more restrictive than currently exists. We aren't changing any of the uses. Were additional meetings held? MORGAN: Not that I know of. CATHERINE MORROW: The letter was received today does specifically list some of the uses that they would like to see. It's from the person who owns the property. Chair De Wolf then opened the public hearing. JAN BLAKE: When we met that evening, we spent all of our time going over the uses. We specifically talked about all that. I would hope that it was part of your consideration. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 6 of 21 Pages DEWOLF: Each group focused on different things and came up with different ideas. The only thing we concluded was what came up at the end. Basically, that vote said to go with the residential five -acre minimum; and on the two -acre lot, one -acre minimum. That's what the vote said that night, and that's what we put together for today. BLAKE: Thank you for your professional meetings and for hearing what we had to say. Your staff was wonderful in handling the many personalities. We appreciate your time and for listening to us. ANDY ANDREWS: We appreciate what you did. We all learned something. That petition did include all the pages attached to it. We did have a vote at the meeting, but on that petition what they are saying is that there is a concern, if you added up the people in the groups, the concern was it divided our community. We have to live with each other. The vote was different because people weren't really able to express what they wanted at the meeting. If you compared the petition to the sign -in sheets, you'll see that it lists most of the same people that attended the meeting. All live in the surrounding area, and are saying that if in the fact the Greens or whoever wants to divide their property, they should have to go through whatever process would be normally followed. DEWOLF: This complicates this for me, in regard to the process we just went through, and are still going through. That night it was okay to divide it into two one -acre parcels. It could have been complicated because the owners of the property were there. Everything else seems to be resolved except this. This has really divided our community. If it were one -acre minimum, they would still have to meet all the water and utility requirements, including septic fields. I don't know what to do. You may agree or disagree in this regard. ANDREWS: I think you should consider who signed this petition after the fact. Some felt intimidated there, at the meeting. I'd like to know what the difference is if we were to divide it into one -acre parcels. What would they have to go through to make a change later? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 7 of 21 Pages MORROW: If the Board decided on two -acre minimums today, and the Greens wanted to go to one -acre pieces, in order to allow a one -acre minimum would take an amendment to the zoning text. That application costs over $1,000, and then they would have to go through the normal land partition process, which costs more. The zone change would have to come before the Board. DEWOLF: And, by the time they hire an attorney, it would be at least twice as much money. MORROW: Today they could come in and apply for a partition down to 6,000 square foot pieces. If you vote to allow only a one -are minimum, they would have to go through the normal partition process, and would not have to come before you. DEWOLF: Based on the proposal, they would have to meet requirements in regard to water and septic. And today they could break off a 6,000 square foot parcel, and if they wanted to do a business that doesn't require a septic, they could do so. ANDREWS: It's a concern to the community, and we would like it to have to come before the Board. Once the foot is in the door, the notification would be minimal and we wouldn't be aware of it. DEWOLF: If it were me, I'd make application now, today. They could have 6,000 square foot lots if they got their application in before this is approved. ANDREWS: Part of the problem is that they have a trailer and a business that isn't permitted; this is the community's way of saying that they want a say in what happens there. We feel they should have to go through what others have to in order to put up a barn or whatever. If they have to pay the fee, so be it. The unfortunate thing is that the owners of the store are very nice, but they really don't cater to the immediate communities. Mostly they cater to Crook County residents and tourists. We want them to know we are also a part of that community and want to be involved. If this is held to a two -acre minimum, if they are serious about a change they will go through the process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 8 of 21 Pages LUKE: One of the reasons I asked about the number of people at the meeting is that the number of signatures on the petition is about the same. The problem I have is after hours of meetings and a vote, I thought staff had some pretty good direction on what the community wants. This puts me in a bad position trying to cross-reference the names. We had an open public discussion, and to me the community came to a resolution. This is in complete opposition to what the people came up with after a thorough discussion. DEWOLF: Now, they're essentially getting to vote again but don't have to face each other so people feel less intimidated. This is very awkward. ANDREWS: I only did what the Planning Commission said we ought to do. The only reason I went to the Planning Commission meeting is because I got noticed on it at work. I told the Planning Commission that not enough people were notified. They told me if I wanted to change the process, to get a petition signed. So this petition was done at the instruction of the Planning Commission. DEWOLF: The other recommendation was for you all to talk together more after the meeting, back at the hall, to address the various uses that you'd like to see and not like to see. None of that has happened. I appreciate you felt you did what the Planning Commission recommended, but this is extremely awkward. ANDREWS: It is hard to get everyone together in a rural area. The point is, when people found out about this, the involvement was good. What I'm saying, though, is that we feel that those are the votes, on the petition. I've talked to several people in the different groups; they all want it the way it is. If you add it up, the vote was unanimous that we do this. At the meeting, when you took it the items one by one, it intimidated people. LUKE: Many came up to us and thanked us, and said it was a good process, and said they were glad we were there. The difference between a petition and a public process is process is the discussion of both sides. A petition is one-sided. There was a vote taken there. When the Sheriff was out there later in the week, I noticed there were different people attending. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 9 of 21 Pages DEWOLF: If we paid attention to these other letters, they express a different opinion from the petition. All of them came in after the fact. Some say leave it the same, and others say change it. ANDREWS: The Board of Directors of the Water Company are the same people all the time. No one in the community has been asked for their involvement. We're not trying to be vicious. If it happens as it did before, we'd never know about it. We took this petition out and asked for signatures. LUKE: Did we change the notice requirements? MORGAN: No, we didn't get a consensus on that. We could add that, too, if you want. LUKE: The owner of the property made a good point, why do this on his property and not on others' properties. ANDREWS: No one else would build a bar. People who came to the meeting are right in community, as were the signers of the petition. We did what we thought was in our best interests. If the noticing had gone out the first time as it later did, this would have been resolved earlier. We were instructed by the Planning Commission to get the petition, and we did. Rather than having the opportunity to have something going without our knowledge scares us. If you maintain the two -acre min, they can still do what they want to do. If you go to a one -acre minimum, we will never be notified and won't know what's going on out there. The community is concerned about some of the uses. We find it interesting that you got a letter representing the water users, when many of us use the water, not just the board. MORGAN: Based on phone calls, it is the commercial use, which draws people, which is the concern. That's why they think the notice should go out further. A number of them expressed concerns about the traffic going through the area. DALY: What uses are you concerned about? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 10 of 21 Pages ANDREWS: At the meeting, the owner said that he didn't care if it was the same. Then he mentioned a bar. He said a bar would be great, and said 90% of the people would like it. Some of the uses are a concern. People don't want a bar. His draw is Crook County. When they start talking about a bar or Laundromat, we get concerned. DALY: If you were going to do these things, you'd need two acres. What difference will it make if you take it to one -acre parcels? A vet clinic was mentioned, and maybe a welding shop. ANDREWS: There has been some indication that they wanted to start serving beer in the store. We heard before that they don't have plans to do anything. But it's been on the market before. When we talked about the property across the street going into two -acre parcels, the concern was what was going to be done with that acreage. We want to be noticed. This is not for us. DALY: It doesn't seem to make any difference. ANDREWS: They have illegal lights and a trailer out there, which they say is okay. We just want to have some say in what they do. The community feels that they should have to do more to do this kind of thing. Chair De Wolf asked if anyone else wished to testify. There was no response offered. DEWOLF: Can we leave the record open? Would we have to renotice for the reading? It has to be to a date and time certain. If you change your mind between the first and second readings, you would have to read that portion. DEWOLF: If we go with what is before us, and over the next two weeks we change our minds, can we change that provision and read it at the second reading? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 11 of 21 Pages RICK ISHAM: After you read it as proposed, you have to move to amend it, approve it, and have a second reading. If you do a substantial change in an ordinance, you may have to do another first reading. I don't think you would have to notice this, as it would not be a substantial change. LUKE: I believe in the process. I think we did a thorough process. There was not unanimity at each table; there was lots of input; staff did a good job; and the letter regarding the Planning Commission was a bit confusing. That could have been a problem. I'm happy with the staff recommendation for one -acre minimum, but would like something expanding the notification area. I think we should be able to amend this today to reflect this or add in a second reading. DALY: I wasn't able to attend the meeting, but I am a firm believer of the highest, best use of land, and sometimes smaller is better. They would need the two acres for some uses, but could site a lot of businesses on one. ANDREWS: The major problem was notification of people. If you do a first or second reading, you probably won't have any response. We are concerned about if they sold, what the next person can do. If we aren't made aware, that would be a concern. DEWOLF: This baffles me. When we recommended you to talk about the various uses, we didn't get any of that. You could have made recommendations regarding what should be there outright, or conditionally, or not at all. I don't understand, as you could have had the most input on this. ANDREWS: There were bigger issues at meeting, and a lot going on. Obviously it is very important. I think if we can resolve the noticing, that will help. � R We didn't have time to talk about it. We all thought it was done, that you had our input. We spent a lot of time going through that paperwork. MORGAN: We need to talk with Legal; we can't just put this in the code, as it could be a significant change to the entire county. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 12 of 21 Pages DALY: A notice would be posted in front of the property, and the immediate neighbors would be notified. MORGAN: They are concerned we would only notify the adjacent owners. We went out for a two-mile radius for the other meeting. LUKE: Why can't you put in one zone a different notification? CRAGHEAD: The notice area is a minimum notice area. You can expand the notice. LUKE: Can you make it a policy that anything in this commercial area would have an expanded notice area? LAURIE: If it were appealed to LUBA and the Court of Appeals, those people would have to show how they were aggrieved. LUKE: If it is just a notification, we can give staff direction about that. DALY: I think that is the issue, not the lot size. LUKE: I would rather do it by policy and not by ordinance. ISHAM: We need to meet on that. DEWOLF: There may be legal implications that we aren't thinking about CRAGHEAD: You may want to keep the hearing open on just this issue. LUKE: The only reason to keep open is to take outside testimony. We can change the ordinance and talk to staff without the hearing being opened. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 13 of 21 Pages CRAGHEAD: Ex parte contact issue doesn't count anyway since it is a legislative matter. If you leave it open, you need a date and time certain to avoid renoticing. MORROW: This needs to be done before June 30. DEWOLF: I'm going to continue the hearing for two weeks. The hearing was then continued to May 8, 2002, 10:00 a.m. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of the Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2002-016 and Ordinance No. 2002-020, Implementing Amendments to Title 18 and 23 to Address House Bill 3326 (Regarding Certain Land Divisions in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone). LUKE: Earlier I raised concerns about a five-year non -irrigated provision. I still believe that is a good provision, but want the rest of the ordinance to be able to go forward. LUKE: I move to amend the proposed language in Ordinance No. 2002-020 by removing the 81h and 91h WHEREAS clauses that relate to the land being without a water right for a minimum of five years. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. LUKE: I move to amend Ordinance No. 2002-016 by removing the last sentence of the proposed language in DCC 18.16.055(A), relating to the eligibility of land to be considered non -irrigated. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 14 of 21 Pages LUKE: I move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2002- 016, as amended, declaring an emergency. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair DeWolf then did the first and second readings, by title only. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. LUKE: I move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2002- 020, declaring an emergency. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then did the first and second readings, by title only. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. LUKE: I'd like it clear for the record that I've asked staff to prepare additional language to be considered later. CRAGHEAD: Bill Boyer had a letter to present to the BOCC in opposition to the ordinance, which I forgot to give you in advance. Since it is a legislative matter, you can accept it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 15 of 21 Pages LUKE: I move that we accept this letter into the record. DALY: Second. DEWOLF: We've already voted. It's too late. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes NO. 10. Before the Board was Consideration of the Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2002-009 and Ordinance No. 2002-010, Amending the Deschutes County Code to Add a Transferable Development Credit Program (Regarding the La Pine "New Neighborhood'g. Dave Leslie gave a brief overview. Staff urges the approval of both with an emergency clause, to initiate initial offer period. We suggest that you direct staff to do so through July 31, 2002, during the initial period the county will solicit options for the TDC, any options brought in would be dealt with in a manner where the county would pay for initial title report. The title of the document conservation easement is being amended to a restrictive covenant. This changes the wording in the ordinance. The document is not part of the ordinance. LUKE: I move first and second reading of Ordinance 2002-009, by title only, declaring an emergency. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then did the first and second readings by title only. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 16 of 21 Pages LUKE: I move first and second reading of Ordinance 2002-010, by title only, declaring an emergency. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair DeWolf then did the first and second readings by title only. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items: 11. Signature of Resolution No. 2002-030, Adopting the Oregon Department of Revenue Assessment Taxation Grant Application for 2002-03, and Designating a County Contact Person for the Grant Application 12. Signature of a Federal Highway Project Agreement for the Reconstruction of Road 45 between Sunriver and Mt. Bachelor 13. Signature of a Bureau of Land Management Right -of -Way Grant for a Portion of Mountainview Road 14. Signature of a Deed Conveying an Uneconomic Remnant Parcel resulting from the Deschutes Junction Overcrossing Project to an Individual 15. Chair Signature of an Intent to Award an Asphalt Coated Crush Rock Contract to Hooker Creek Asphalt & Curbing, LLC (the Apparent Qualified Low Bidder) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 17 of 21 Pages 16. Signature of Order No. 2002-062, Establishing a Speed Zone of 35 MPH on NW 21" Street, Redmond 17. Signature of Order No. 2002-061, Establishing a Speed Zone of 35 MPH on NW 25th Street, Redmond 18. Signature of Order No. 2002-060, Establishing a Speed Zone of 35 MPH on NW Rimrock Street, Redmond 19. Signature of Order No. 2002-066, Assigning the Name of Zodiac Lane to an Unnamed Access Road (near Young Avenue) 20. Signature of Order No. 2002-064, Changing the Name of this Portion of River Loop Drive to River Point Court (near Fall River) 21. Signature of Order No. 2002-069, Changing the Name of this Portion of 3rd Street to Robin Lane (near La Pine) 22. Signature of Order No. 2002-068, Assigning the Name of Ranch Place to an Unnamed Access Road (near La Pine) 23. Signature of Order No. 2002-067, Changing the Name of 73rd Street to 74th Lane (near Young Avenue) 24. Signature of Order No. 2002-065, Assigning the Name of Penny Lane to an Unnamed Access Road (off Tumalo Road) 25. Signature of Order No. 2002-071, Rescinding Order No. 2002-056 and Canceling the Public Hearing for the Walker Annexation into the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District (the Petition is to be Resubmitted 26. Signature of an Indemnity Agreement for the High Desert Stage Bike Race Scheduled for May 4 & 5, 2002 27. Signature of a Deed and Dedication to the Public and Acceptance of a Right -of - Way of a Portion of Young Avenue (a Landlocked Parcel Located between Bend and Redmond) 28. Signature of Resolution No. 2002-031, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County General Fund to Cover the Purchase of Office Equipment, and Directing Entries 29. Signature of Resolution No. 2002-034, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Solid Waste Budget, and Directing Entries Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 18 of 21 Pages 30. Signature of Resolution No. 2002-035, Transferring Appropriations within Various Funds of the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Deschutes County Budget (regarding a GIS/Website Programmer Position), and Directing Entries 31. Signature of Resolution No. 2002-037, Transferring Appropriations within the General Fund for the Justice Court and Sheriff's Funds (Due to a Decrease in Room Tax Revenue) 32. Signature of a Letter Reappointing George Turner to the Board of Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District No. 6, through December 31, 2002 33. Signature of a Letter Appointing Evelyn Ward to the Board of Special Road District No. 8 34. Signature of Letters Appointing Jack Mills and Wes Parrin, and Reappointing Richard Ferini, to the Board of the Four Rivers Vector Control District CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 35. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $5,729.18 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 36. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amounts of $1,071.90 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 19 of 21 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 37. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,275,677.40 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 38. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Tom De Wolf adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p. m. ADDITION LATER IN THE DAY (at a regularly scheduled department meeting) Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2002-074, Declaring Certain Deschutes County Property Surplus, and Authorizing its Sale. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Page 20 of 21 Pages DATED this 24th Day of April 2002 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: �Gtittu c..�� Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 21 of 21 Pages Tom DeWo1f.,Ghair is R. Luke, Commissioner Wednesday, April 24, 2002