2005-170-Minutes for Meeting February 28,2005 Recorded 3/15/2005COUNTY
TES
FICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKDS
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL :06:23 PM
011)[1111111111111111111111
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Dechutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orp-
MINUTES OF MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2005
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building
1300 NW Wall St..., Bend
Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Michael M. Daly and Dennis R. Luke.
Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Tom Blust and Dennis
Morris, Road Department; Tom Anderson and Matthew Martin, Community
Development; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Dan Peddycord,
Janet Harris and Sherri Tobin, Health Department; media representative Eric
Flowers of the Bulletin, and six other citizens.
Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m.
1. CITIZEN INPUT
STEVEN GREER:
My name is Steven Greer, and I live in Deschutes County on 64149 Harris
Way. Basically, I wanted to just spend a moment and talk about a concern that
I've had that has to do with a land use issue that sits in the back yard of my
home. I certainly don't want to talk about the facts of the case, but it is the
process that has created some heartburn for me.
It's the J Bar J application. My concern is that that process sat at the County
staff for a long time, and effectively County staff quashed my ability to get an
appeal to you.
What happened was that we actually went to an appeals hearing last August 31,
and we had a time frame put together where an appeal hearing report would
have been out by the end of October. As a practical matter, that report came out
the week before Christmas, taking at least twice as long as it ordinarily would
have taken, or certainly as what the schedule would have been.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 1 of 21 Pages
We probably would have still gotten it before you in a timely, appropriate way
so that you could have heard it; however, staff sat on that report and would not
release our appeal to you until thirteen days before that required period would
have run. And, as was reported in the media, there simply wasn't time. You
could not deal with the time to hear that appeal.
My concern is, as a resident of this County, there's a good old saying that a
man's home is his castle, my home is under attack from what I believe is a
commercial development, and there are issues there. My ability to appeal under
your rules and under ordinances and appropriate standards was effectively
stripped away by your staff. For 201 days they held that thing away from you,
until thirteen days before the final running of that time.
We've appealed it to LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals), and what we would
ask is if you ever get a chance to hear that, we'd love for you to hear it, in that
the Hearings Officer had varied material issues that were incorrect facts. There
are issues about precedent that I do not want in my neighborhood or in other
neighborhoods of the County, but you will not hear those because your staff
quashed my ability to present them to you. You won't hear about the facts and
the testimony that was overlooked because staff quashed my ability to present it
to you. It's that process that I want to bring to your attention.
DEWOLF:
What would be helpful is if you could put down the pertinent dates, what took
place, and what have you, on paper.
GREER:
I just happen to have that now. (He provided a handout to the Commissioners;
a copy is attached as Exhibit B)
DEWOLF:
I want to get this over to Community Development and get their perspective on
what happened; then maybe get back together with you.
I' `J 114
Land use is not simple, and that's why there are attorneys involved. They tend
to sometimes make it harder. One of the things that was brought to our
attention was that there were some things that went on between the applicants
and their right to appeal decisions, and some procedural things that actually
would not allow staff to come to us.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 2 of 21 Pages
DEWOLF:
I'd like him to have that feedback as well.
LUKE:
We'll get you a copy of that, because it was on the record when we had that
discussion. There's no guarantee that even if it had gotten here in a timely
fashion that we would have heard it.
GREER:
And I appreciate that, that there is no guarantee. My concern is that whatever
opportunity there would have been was effectively stripped away.
DEWOLF:
We never had the opportunity to discuss this with our Legal Counsel. I don't
know personally that I could hear it. I don't know if these guys could. Because
we've had a threat of a lawsuit by J Bar J towards the County for several years
now and it has never been resolved. Consequently I don't know, even if legally
I could hear it, that I could be unbiased in my actions. It may well have gone to
LUBA anyway. But, as you say, we never had the opportunity to discuss the
merits of that with our Legal Counsel, and what we could have done.
GREER:
If you could at least let us know what the issues were. This is a large
neighborhood and that was one of the issues, and a lot of the neighbors have
been very affected and are very concerned, now about the process. They can
have a real empty feeling about how this County processes work for us. It
would be really helpful if you could get back with us.
DEWOLF:
We'll get back to you, and will do it soon.
JUDY SMITH:
I'm Judy Smith, and I live at 20410 Rogers Road. I'm also a neighbor,
regarding the Rogers/Hunnell/Harris Way decision. We have lived in our home
for 35 years, same place, same property, and same address. We have been very
involved in this particular decision, and are also very sorry about the process
that has happened. We appreciate you just hearing public comment right now
from us.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 3 of 21 Pages
I know you did not have time, and I understand, and appreciate you hopefully
getting back to us. But I also want you to know that it does affect about 100 of
us neighbors in that particular area. I think a lot of it depends upon our trust of
County government and what happens.
I guess I would like you to just hear what we are saying and think about the
impact it has on all of us, as you would in your own neighborhoods. Please
remember that it isn't just the intrusion; it has to do with compatibility with the
area and all of the other things that go along with that, like lighting and safety
and other issues that are very important to us. So we, as neighbors, would
appreciate it if you would consider it a little longer.
DEWOLF:
We will copy you on that correspondence. The complication often times is that
things are just so tight for the time. I don't know the details in this particular
case, but there have been a number of cases during the past couple of years that
we have not been allowed to hear because of that timing issue. It's really
frustrating for us, but not nearly as frustrating as it is for you, I'm sure, but we
deal with this stuff regularly. My apologies.
We will definitely get back to you through our Community Development
Department as to what happened. Because if there are ways that we can find to
streamline and make this process work better, we want it to work better for you
and for us.
PAUL DEWEY:
I'm Paul Dewey, 1539 NW Vicksburg. I have represented a number of clients
like this and want to give a little bit broader perspective. I wrote a letter to the
County two years ago about this problem, but if anything it has gotten worse
over time. There has been the Hogensen case that got to you on the 150th day,
and then there was the Bull Springs Road issue when there was only time for an
on the record appeal.
LUKE:
There was the Cyrus one, also, with Central Electric Cooperative, which got
here too late for us to hear.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 4 of 21 Pages
DEWEY:
The real problem here, and I've heard Legal Counsel and staff often say to you
that it will go to LUBA and LUBA can take care of it. That's true, to the extent
that we are dealing with state laws regulations. But often times we're dealing
with unique County regulations where you are the interpreters. When this gets
appealed to LUBA, LUBA gives deference to your interpretation of your own
provisions.
The problem is that they aren't given deference to your interpretations; they are
giving deference to the Hearings Officers' interpretations. The Hearings
Officers are not elected by the people, and they aren't the legislators who draft
the ordinances; you are in the best position to interpret your own ordinances.
So when this goes to LUBA — and I just had a case the other day in the Court of
Appeals, and the other side was arguing that the County interprets its Code this
way, and it was just so frustrating — because you all had never interpreted the
Code on this. It was in regard to forestry issues. The Hearings Officer
interpreted it, but you all didn't.
There needs to be a way to get unique County issues and ordinances before you
for your interpretation. The staff reports that you get don't break down the
issues. They don't say, these are state issues, and these are unique County
issues such as the interpretation of something, such as what is a school under
County Code, what's compatibility and do you value adjoining land values.
Those aren't state rules that LUBA is going to consider at face value. They are
going to give deference to your interpretation. We would just like for you all to
be making those interpretations.
I don't want to take any more time today, but I do plan to come back to you
later with some specific recommendations on how the Code might be revised to
allow for this.
LUKE:
Have you made the same presentation to the City of Bend, which doesn't hear
any appeal?
DEWEY:
It is the same frustration. They are under the same illusion that LUBA will take
care of it.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 5 of 21 Pages
DEWOLF:
The one thing that I want to be clear about is that we aren't under any illusion
that LUBA is a good option when we can't hear something. We think it is a
poor option. We want to at least be able to have the opportunity to make a
decision on whether to hear something. And the timing is literally the only
reason that these has happened.
There may be other reasons, like in the case with the J Bar J one, but we didn't
have the opportunity to even deal with that. I think that I speak for all three of
us that we clearly believe that local decisions ought to me made locally, not by
a state board that doesn't live here and deal with these issues.
DEWEY:
Often times I will file an appeal for a client to LUBA to try to get them to
remand it back so that you can hear it. It is a very frustrating process.
LUKE:
It is your position that the local decisions are better than LUBA decisions, so
maybe you wouldn't want to appeal a local decision?
DEWEY:
No, actually we might not, if we knew your opinion on something. We know
that LUBA will grant deference to it, so if we don't think we have a good
argument we aren't going to waste our time and money to go to LUBA on it.
It's just that if we don't get your interpretation on it, and have a Hearings
Officer's interpretation, and we think that if we could actually get to you, we
might persuade you.
DEWOLF:
When something goes directly to LUBA because of our lack of time, do we put
any kind of cover letter with it that says, effectively, that this isn't necessarily
the position of the County but is the position the Hearings Officer has taken?
LAURIE CRAGHEAD:
We don't; we don't need to do that. LUBA knows it is just the Hearings
Officer's decision. And they couldn't take that into evidence anyway. The
only thing they are allowed to consider is the record and the arguments of the
parties.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 6 of 21 Pages
They only do on the record unless there is some extraordinary reason why they
need to take additional evidence. They would not take a letter that says this is
not necessarily the opinion of the Board, just the Hearings Officer. That would
be something that would be argued by the parties at the time.
DEWOLF:
But it is clear to them that it has not been before the Board.
CRAGHEAD:
Yes. I the briefs the parties have to lay out what the procedural history is. As
I've said before, there is always also the option of withdrawing from
reconsideration, but that does carry a cost with it unless the petitioner who is
appealing it is willing to waive the cost. It is a matter of whether the Board
wants to —
DEWOLF:
If our 150 days has already run, what's the point?
CRAGHEAD:
If we do a withdrawal from reconsideration, then you can hear it. You would
withdraw it and then call it up on your own. Normally under our Code, even if
it is withdrawn from reconsideration, it goes back to the original hearings body.
If the original hearings body was the Hearings Officer, the Board would on its
own call up the decision.
DEWOLF:
I guess I just don't understand. I thought the 150 -day rule actually mattered.
What you are telling me is that, for instance, we can't hear the J Bar J issue, and
it goes to LUBA. If we say we want to reconsider, bring it back, then the 150
days doesn't matter anymore?
CRAGHEAD:
Right, you now have another 90 days. But the petitioner would have had to
have gone to the trouble of submitting a filing a fee to LUBA and filing the
notice of intent to appeal. I believe that they get back the filing fee if we do a
notice of withdrawal from reconsideration, and there are times when we have
had an agreement with a petitioner in which they agree to waive any costs if we
do a withdrawal from reconsideration.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 7 of 21 Pages
LUKE:
The applicant doesn't have a say in this at all?
CRAGHEAD:
No, because it is the petitioners' right.
reconsideration.
Under the OAR's it is just a notice of
DEWOLF:
So we could have heard any one of these, by pulling them back from LUBA.
CRAGHEAD:
Right, and I have brought them to you before and you have done that before.
DALY:
They have to go to LUBA first?
CRAGHEAD:
Yes.
DEWEY:
Just the notice of appeal goes to LUBA.
CRAGHEAD:
It doesn't get heard at LUBA when you do a withdrawal for reconsideration.
The Board has done it at different times.
DEWOLF:
We could do it now if we wanted to.
CRAGHEAD:
If it has been appealed to LUBA. I haven't received the notice of intent to
appeal.
DEWEY:
I just filed it on Friday.
DEWOLF:
What's our time frame on this? To make a decision like that?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 8 of 21 Pages
CRAGHEAD:
Anytime prior to submittal of the record, which is within twenty-one days of
receipt of the notice of intent to appeal. So, twenty-one days from Friday.
Then you have ninety days to make a decision on reconsideration, from the time
we get an order from LUBA granting our notice of reconsideration.
LUKE:
Before you ask for that to come back, you need a meeting with staff and Legal
to have a work session to determine if you would actually hear it if it came
back. We never had that discussion. There was no consensus that we were
going to hear it because we never had the discussion.
DEWOLF:
And we've got to talk with you about that. I've got grave concerns about my
own ability to hear this one. I don't know about Dennis and Mike.
LUKE:
I don't have a problem hearing it if the facts require that.
DALY:
I don't, either.
DEWOLF:
We should set up a meeting to go over this. Obviously it won't happen until
after March 14. So we have until the 18ffi to decide what we want to do. I think
that is worth discussing.
LUKE:
I would hope that we could get a copy of the appeal and Legal would have an
opportunity to look at the basis for the appeal. We can talk about this when we
get back.
It was decided that a meeting with Community Development staff and Legal
Counsel will be scheduled the week of March 14. Because it involves pending
litigation, it could be handled under Executive Session.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 9 of 21 Pages
2. Before the Board was a Presentation and Consideration of Signature of a
Proclamation Declaring March 2005 as Deschutes County and COIC
Nutrition Month, in Observance of National Nutrition Month.
Janet Harris and Sherri Tobin of the Health Department thanked the Board for
its support of the B -Well Program, and presented them with a poster
recognizing National Nutrition Month. They gave an overview of the details of
the proclamation, and then read it to the audience.
LUKE: Move signature
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2005-
027, Declaring Property Surplus and Directing Its Disposition.
Dennis Morris gave an overview of the item to be donated. He said the County
has a good relationship with Central Oregon Community College that results in
COCC providing automotive and heavy equipment program training to
students, and the County benefits from some of the repair work.
LUKE: Move signature
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2005-
068, an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and
Four Rivers Vector Control District regarding Mosquito Control Services.
LUKE: Move signature
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 10 of 21 Pages
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2005-
069, an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the
Sunriver Owners Association regarding Mosquito Control Services to be
Provided by Four Rivers Vector Control District.
Dan Peddycord said that Deschutes County acts as a bridge between the two
entities to allow vector control work. Historically Sunriver has handled the
vector control agreement themselves.
Commissioner Luke stated that if House Bill 2595 passes, it would allow
Sunriver to contract on its own.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing
Mike Bonetto to the Deschutes County Public Health Advisory Board,
through February 28, 2008.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
7. Before the Board was Consideration of First and Second Readings and
Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2005-010, Adding Chapter 2.37
to the Deschutes County Code, regarding Public Contracting.
Mark Pilliod said this Code is required by action of the 2003 legislature. He
said the ordinance was advertised in the Bulletin and Daily Journal of
Commerce, and no comments have been received.
Regarding the first page of the ordinance, the sixth "whereas" clause should
indicate February 18, 2005 instead of March 18.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 11 of 21 Pages
This Code allows the Board as the default Contract Review Board for the
County and Special Districts, but this can be delegated to the managing board
of the District if desired. Commissioner Luke asked that a phrase be added that
this can be done "by resolution of the Board", which would allow this action
without having to amend the Code.
A new subsection was inserted that the administrator of the Special District can
be given the authority to determine a sole source, and also has a comparable
authority to enter into contracts that don't exceed $25,000.
Also, language has been inserted that there is an exemption on procurements in
support of computers and mental health services; both are currently in the
County Code as exemptions from the public procurement process.
In regard to concession agreements, there are currently two arrangements for
concessions at the Fairgrounds; the one that was the subject of an RFP process
would not be covered by this exemption. Regarding the remaining one relative
to the Fair, this provision will allow the manager to apply the selection criteria
approved by the Fair Board.
Commissioner DeWolf asked where in the new Code he would find a
requirement for legal review of contracts. Mr. Pilliod replied that this is
covered under County Policy, and the Board has also adopted a Policy to
review insurance provisions, so all agreements should be handled properly.
LUKE: Move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2005-010, including
the changes as detailed by Legal Counsel.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Chair DeWolf then conducted the first and second readings of the ordinance, by
title only, declaring an emergency.
LUKE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2005-010, by emergency.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 12 of 21 Pages
8. Before the Board was Consideration of the First Reading of Ordinance No.
2005-006, Amending Title 23 to Change the Plan Designation on a Certain
Property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area.
Matthew Martin indicated that changes are still being made to this ordinance,
which will be submitted to the Board at a later date.
9. Before the Board was Consideration of the First Reading of Ordinance No.
2005-007, Amending Title 18 to Change the Zone Designation on Certain
Property from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural.
Matthew Martin indicated that changes are still being made to this ordinance,
which will be submitted to the Board at a later date.
10. Before the Board was the Continuation of a Public Hearing, and Discussion
and Consideration of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2005-004
regarding Nighttime Noise Control.
Tom Anderson said that the latest version of the ordinance reflects previous
discussions. There have been two major changes: language was added
regarding "upon finding a public necessity exists", even if it can't be mitigated.
The other change requires the contracting agency to request the exemption
instead of having the contractor make the request. They would know about the
exception prior to going out to bid.
This process takes Community Development out of the process, and the
contracting agency could go directly to the Board. This will help avoid
unnecessary work and will be a quicker process. Mr. Anderson said his staff
will work with Legal Counsel to develop the proper form..
Chair DeWolf reopened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, he
closed the hearing.
LUKE: Move first reading of Ordinance No. 2005-004.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 13 of 21 Pages
Chair DeWolf then conducted the first reading of the ordinance.
The second reading and consideration ofdoption of Ordinance No. 2005-004
is scheduled for the Wednesday, March '16 Board meeting.
11. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing
John Stephenson to the Deschutes County Weed Board, through
December 31, 2007.
LUKE: Move signature
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$389.41.
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/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the
Amount of $1,137.65.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 14 of 21 Pages
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $596,043.32.
• Consideration of "Teen Healthy Relationship" Parent Night Program
($1,250 lottery fund grant request) - DeWolf
• Consideration of "Prevention — Teen Film Series" Program ($275 lottery
fund grant request) - DeWolf
LUKE: Move approval, including the grant fund requests, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
15. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA
Before the Board was a Discussion of a Proposal for Fencing along
Millican Road.
TOM BLUST:
I'm Tom Blust of the Road Department. We've been discussing this issue for
about the past year or so, so you are pretty well acquainted with the issues. I
did attach a map to your information depicting where some fencing is already
being constructed on the Deschutes County portion of Millican Road, and then
the remaining sections on that. (A copy of his memo and the map is attached as
Exhibit C.)
After our meeting last week with Mr. Wogman, he indicated that he needs to be
able to get into these pastures starting the first part of April. In order to do that,
what I am recommending is that we make an offer back to Mr. Wogman
essentially stating that we would reimburse any of his fencing costs up to
$20,000, which is the equivalent amount of two cattle guards out there.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 15 of 21 Pages
We could also indicate that we would be supportive of him making application
for Taylor Grazing funds. That application actually goes through the Soil and
Water Conservation District, but ultimately comes to the Board.
DEWOLF:
My understanding is that Taylor Grazing funds requires a one-to-one match; is
that accurate?
BLUST:
My understanding is that these funds are paid out only for materials costs, but
not labor.
MIKE MAIER:
I think there might be some flexibility in that regard.
BLUST:
I did verify that the funds that are currently in the Taylor Grazing funds are not
obligated at this time. So there is approximately $18,500 in the fund. My
recommendation is that we make that offer. If Mr. Wogman doesn't feel it is an
adequate offer, we need to get things started on getting the cattle guards in.
DALY:
I'd like to make a comment. I've been thinking about this quite a bit. When
you think about it, Mr. Wogman had grazing rights along this road when the
road was a slow -speed, rough, gravel road. At that point in time the cattle
walked back and forth and there wasn't a problem with traffic. It was the two
counties that changed all that. We are the ones that decided to pave the road.
To me, it's not Mr. Wogman's responsibility to do anything. I think it
behooves us to see that the public safety issues involved in this road are
handled. He shouldn't have a responsibility to fence this. He had a grazing
right there before we started this, and has the same right now but is not able to
use it because of the fencing issue.
LUKE:
There's nothing stopping him from using his grazing rights. He can turn cattle
out there now.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 16 of 21 Pages
DALY:
I think we have a responsibility for the public safety issue. That's what I am
concerned about.
DEWOLF:
We've got a lot of responsibilities for public safety on roads that carry more
than 300 vehicles a day. That's been my beef all along, and yours, too, at one
time, that we are putting money into a road that really doesn't impact Deschutes
County to any great degree.
We keep dipping back into the well to deal with it because we have one very
noisy guy who keeps coming back and asking for more and more. I just can't
justify it, with all of the other needs we have in this County.
DALY:
You may not be able to justify it, but you know he is correct. When you've got
high-speed traffic and cattle that may get on that road, and somebody gets hurt
or killed, I believe we have a huge liability here. We're the ones who changed
this thing. Mr. Wogman didn't change anything. He had this right before and
we changed the road.
DEWOLF:
What hasn't changed is that it is open range. The responsibility is the drivers'.
DALY:
You can say that all day long, but by the same token, if someone gets killed by
hitting a cow at night and we haven't fixed these fences — we changed things
out there, and I really believe that we should check with Legal Counsel and
analyze this situation. I believe we have a responsibility here.
LUKE:
What about all of the other County roads that aren't fenced in south County and
over towards Sisters? When the Sheriff's Deputy hit that cow, we were lucky
that it wasn't in open range. But just down the road from where he hit that cow
it is open range. There is a lot of open range in Deschutes County, and we
have paved County roads in that open range that carry a lot more than 300
vehicles a day.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 17 of 21 Pages
BLUST:
One thing I might point out here is that under this offer using those funds,
depending on what the Deschutes Soil and Water folks would consider for
reimbursement of fencing materials, they are willing to work with ranchers to
help provide some of the labor for installing the fencing. I think that by
working through them, and with those reimbursements, Mr. Wogman can get
most of the fencing paid for.
Some of it will have to come out of his pocket, though, and he will have to
make some effort in dealing with an application for the Taylor Grazing funds.
think for the most part that he will be able to get most of the fencing done out
there.
LUKE:
We have an obligation to install the cattle guards if there is no fencing out there,
because they were there before. The main purpose of the cattle guards is to
keep the cattle off Highway 20, and the secondary reason is because of the
cross -fencing. Do we have any guarantee from BLM that if this is fenced
entirely we will not have to put the cattle guards in? What if two or three cows
get through the fence and then out to Highway 20?
BLUST:
It is still open range out there, so I don't think that presents a legal issue, but
I'm not an attorney. As far as the BLM is concerned, they want to make sure
the grazers are able to keep their cattle within the permitted grazing areas. The
cattle guards are meant to do that, and the fencing does that. BLM has
indicated to me through a letter I shared with you that if all of that right of way
is fenced, they don't need the cattle guards out there. In fact, they prefer not
having cattle guards there. They'd rather have the fencing.
One other point that I'd like to make on that, and I think you brought this up,
Dennis, is that on the reimbursement Mr. Wogman's first priority was to fence
the west side of Millican Road, the rest of it from where the existing fencing is,
out to Highway 20, to be able to put cattle into that portion, the southwest
portion of his allotment. His second priority would be the east side from the
Crook County line down to that existing cross -fence. He indicated he wanted to
do those two with the $20,000 and the Taylor Grazing funds, and not do that
remaining portion until sometime in the future.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 18 of 21 Pages
My biggest concern is that we would still be on the hook for those cattle guards
should he decide not to do that. So my recommendation is that we wouldn't do
a reimbursement until all of the fencing was completed on both sides.
LUKE:
Your estimate is about $44,000.
DEWOLF:
And that's based on the quote he got from the fencing company? So if Taylor
Grazing funds were utilized the way they were the last time, he could get
substantially more fencing done for that money. Maybe it wouldn't be the
exact fence that he wants.
DALY:
Are you saying that you think we ought to require him to do all of the fencing,
the whole amount, before we give him any money? Because he is willing to go
ahead and not use this one pasture this year, and will wait for the possible
federal grant to finish the fence.
BLUST:
My concern is that if he just did those two portions of fencing and we
reimbursed him the $20,000, if he decides not to do the other portion the BLM
would still look to the County to install the two cattle guards. That would be an
additional $20,000 outlay of funds. Unless we hold the reimbursement until all
of the fencing is there, we really don't have any control over how much is spent
on the project.
DALY:
Of course, my feeling is that we shouldn't be reimbursing at all — it is our
responsibility to do it ourselves. I'm talking about, and really believe, that we
are the ones who changed the road, and I agree we got hornswoggled little bit
by Crook County on this issue, but I don't think it is Mr. Wogman's
responsibility. It is our responsibility to fence this road.
I am concerned about the public safety issue. You can call it open range all you
want, but if somebody gets killed out there they are going to look to us as being
responsible. Morally, I think we need to do this. I think we can do this with the
available funds and possibly work with him to not use that one pasture, and wait
for the grant funds and get it done.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 19 of 21 Pages
DEWOLF:
If those grant funds come. I appreciate what you are saying but absolutely
disagree with it. We've got so many roads in this County that have a lot more
traffic than that, located in open range, and we don't get sued because that is
how open range operates.
DALY:
What about the moral responsibility?
DEWOLF:
You know, your morals are obviously quite a bit different than mine, and I
really don't care about what you think about my morals. I disagree with you.
This is not a moral issue. If you want to talk about morals, then go talk to
Crook County who needed this road in the first place, and have them pay for
this.
You want moral responsibility, but it lies with the county that is benefiting from
this road, not from ours. Where is your moral responsibility, Mike, when it
comes to safety on all of these other roads that you are going to be taking
money away from to build a fence to protect 300 cars a day from cattle? Where
is your moral responsibility there?
LUKE:
Do we have a problem with prevailing wage since we would be using Road
funds?
MAIER:
I don't think that would be an issue.
LUKE:
I think you have two votes to make this offer. I would be happy if you could
make a deal.
LUKE: Move that you offer to reimburse Mr. Wogman with the $20,000
cattle guard funds and Taylor Grazing funds up to $18,500 once
all of the fencing is in, and that the County Administrator be
authorized to sign the agreement.
DEWOLF: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 20 of 21 Pages
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: I vote no.
DEWOLF: Chair vote yes. (Split vote.)
Mike Maier indicated that he has met with representatives of the City of Bend
regarding the 27th Street extension project, and came to a verbal agreement that
is within the Board's previously expressed guidelines. An intergovernmental
agreement should be ready to come before the Board in a few weeks.
Being no further items brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
11:45 a.m.
DATED this 28th Day of February 2005 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
Tom DeWolf, Ch
ATTEST:
qMAW_� 61kj�A_
Recording Secretary
Daly, Commissioner
is R. Luke, Commissioner
Attachments
Exhibit A: Sign -in sheet (1 page)
Exhibit B: Handout provided by Attorney Paul Dewey (2 pages)
Exhibit C: Memo of February 24, 2005 from Tom Blust, including a map (2 pages)
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 21 of 21 Pages
rage t LA 1
m
N
s
y
C)
r
i
y
1
LL
G
O
Oo
tjo
c
r
0
a
M
Vk
nd
C
Go
c�
a"
N
t
(
vo
bo
1
a
cn
-D
2
t
U
�
N`
�
q
c
N
V
�
�
Q
12
v
o
v
=
O
U
y
F
'
Utp
Z
a
w
s
LU
Exhibit
r
rage t LA 1
m
O
d
CL
T
10 a
CD o c0i
LO
N r d
N E
d o
C V
al c
LL
Exhibit
Page / of 2
I
I�
ca
0
a
N
r
Li c
C
a)
o, y
N I (L
R
O1
N M � f0
V
w y
m Q
+- a
fA
LL
l0
a
Ln
O
co
a
G
r
L
7 y O
U)
O
a O
CD
c
Ln
A
.__.
O CD
C
a o
N
C la
N
O
ti
R
yea
L 0
C O a
a'
m w
o
L
LL
r0
C
Oy
C
O
7 N
O y
UE
O
C O
E
7
Q
O
U
(D
Exhibit
Page / of 2
0
a
N
r
C
a)
R
V
w y
+- a
fA
v`
l0
a
O
�Ni
O
a
C
r
p
7 y O
O
c
O
A
0''
v
a o
i',
C.
E
O
O a
LL
L 0
C O a
N
C
o
y
ai
M
Oy
O
C O
7
Q
m y
(D
CD
m
=
o .
a) a
m
L
N
V �
- L
7
n
O O
IL
F
Exhibit
Page / of 2
0
N
r
o c
w y
+- a
fA
C
p
7 y O
47
O a1
N N
d
rS
L 0
C O a
o
m
Q
CD
(D
as
o .
a) a
m
L
N
V �
- L
n
O O
F
tOi
d
CM
Q
C
_.
LL
Exhibit
Page / of 2
Caption
• File Complete - 150 day period commenced
• Public Hearing - 150 day period suspended
• Resumption of 150 day calendar
Hearings Officer Decision Mailed - 12 Day period
began
Applicant request for reconsideration - Suspend 150
- day period
Neighbors submitted Notice of Appeal
+ Decision on reconsideration - Resume 150 calandar
County Staff notified Commissioner - no time to hear
appeal
150 Day Period Ran
Harris Hunnel Rogers - (Events)
Date Description
07/21/2004 Applicaton accepted by County as complete
08/31/2004 Hearing and suspension of 150 day period
10/01/2004 Resumption of 150 day calendar
12/17/2004 Hearing office mailed just prior to Christmas, 108 days after the hearing
12/23/2004
7
01/12/2005 Appeal was delivered to County staff
01/25/2005 Staff refused to take appeal to the Commission
02/07/2005 Commission decided in work session not to hear appeal - lack of time need 140
days notice for public hearing
02/20/2005
Exhibit %6
Page of A
i
ES
Road Department
tment
91150 S.E. 27th 8t., Bend, OR 97702
(_541) 388-6501 • FAX (5411 388-2719
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 24, 2005
TO: Tom DeWolf, Chair
Michael M. Daly, Commissioner
Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner
FROM: Tom Blust, Road Department Director-'
RE: Millican Road Fence
CC: Mike Maier, County Administrator
Attached is a map depicting the fence situation along Millican Road and showing the estimated
cost to fence the remainder of the road right of way.
Based on Tuesday's meeting with Mr. Wogman I am recommending that the Board make the
following offer:
Deschutes County will reimburse LNK Ranches for fence construction along the right of
way of Millican Road between US Hwy. 20 and the Deschutes/Crook county line.
Reimbursement shall not exceed $20,000. Reimbursement shall be contingent upon
completion of fencing the entire right of way of Millican Road within Deschutes County
(both east and west sides).
Deschutes County shall also be supportive of LNK Ranches application for Taylor
Grazing funds to pay for a portion of the fencing along Millican Road. LNK Ranches
will be responsible for making an application for Taylor Grazing funds through the
Grazing Advisory Board (Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation district). (Note: the
current balance in the Taylor Grazing Fund is $18,478. These funds are currently un -
obligated - there are no pending applications.)
Should Mr. Wogman reject this offer, I would recommend that the Road Department proceed
with replacement of the 2 cattleguards that were removed during the road construction project
(cattleguard at Hwy. 20 and the cattleguard located approximately 3.5 miles north of Hwy. 20).
We will need to order the materials by next week in order to have the cattleguards installed by
the first of April.
Exhibit e
Page I of 7�
"Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. "
---=------ \_.----------- Crook County
Deschutes County
=7c)C-';'
e- -Ic \
1 \
\\ 7 )
-
\ /4 700
t\
20ln�enc�
O r7
7
Z I \\
0- \\
Feet
0 2,000 4,000 8,000 12,000 February 22, 2005
Transmission Lines ' _ County Boundary
County Roads Taxlots
Highway 20
The informatics on [his map was derived ham dgitsl dambases on
Deschutes Count's a. I.S. Cera was taken in the ae lJon of this
Deschutes County
Road Department
map• built is lo-iddd'es is'. Deschutes Canty cannot accept any
.
�' ^
responsibility for errors, omssians, or posie onal accuracy in the digital
�.ry
ohn And—on. GIS Specialist
data ordaunderlying records. There are no warranties, a%pressor
1�
LLQ ILL Iy�—',.^�
Ph-1511)32?>102
implied, including thewarranty of —chi ntebilhy v fion— fora
e t
sma,1:)w,e,oso 1 -hu n w �r
P,ocular purpose accompanying this product. However,..bkati onnaaw:6115e
SE DmA
of any.tors will be a ppre.i.ed.
•!�
— --- - �'^^�°-°s"'i- --'
RWn
C
Exhibit
Page
Z of ?�
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570--- Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.or_q
MEETING AGENDA — FOR THE WEEK
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2005
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building
1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
1. CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board regarding issues that
are not already on the agenda. Visitors who wish to speak should sign up prior to the
beginning of the meeting on the sign-up sheet provided. Please use the microphone and also
state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak.
2. A PRESENTATION and Consideration of Signature of a Proclamation
Declaring March 2005 as Deschutes County and COIC Nutrition Month, in
Observance of National Nutrition Month — Health Department/WIC Program
Nutritionists: Janet Harris, M.S., R.D., B- Well Advisory Board; and Sherri
Tobin, R.D., C.L.E.
3. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No. 2005-027, Declaring
Property Surplus and Directing Its Disposition — Dennis Morris, Road
Department
4. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2005-068, an
Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and Four Rivers
Vector Control District regarding Mosquito Control Services — Dan Peddycord,
Health Department
5. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2005-069, an
Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the Sunriver
Service District regarding Mosquito Control Services to be Provided by Four
Rivers Vector Control District — Dan Peddycord, Health Department
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 1 of 9 Pages
6. CONSIDERATION of Signature of a Letter Appointing Mike Bonetto to the
Deschutes County Public Health Advisory Board, through February 28, 2008 —
Dan Peddycord, Health Department
7. CONSIDERATION of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by
Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2005-010, Adding Chapter 2.37 to the Deschutes
County Code, regarding Public Contracting — Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel
8. CONSIDERATION of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2005-006,
Amending Title 23 to Change the Plan Designation on a Certain Property from
Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area — Matthew Martin, Community
Development Department
9. CONSIDERATION of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2005-007,
Amending Title 18 to Change the Zone Designation on Certain Property from
Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural — Matthew Martin,
Community Development Department
10. CONTINUATION of a Public Hearing, and Discussion and Consideration of
the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2005-004 regarding Nighttime Noise
Control — Tom Anderson, Community Development Department
11. CONSIDERATION of Signature of a Letter Appointing John Stephenson to
the Deschutes County Weed Board, through December 31, 2007
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE
DISTRICT
12. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2005-069, an
Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the Sunriver
Service District regarding Mosquito Control Services to be Provided by Four
Rivers Vector Control District — Dan Peddycord, Health Department
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
13. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the 9-1-1 County Service District.
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 2 of 9 Pages
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
14. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extension/4-H County Service District.
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
15. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County.
• Consideration of "Teen Healthy Relationship" Parent Night Program
($1,250 lottery fund grant request)
• Consideration of "Prevention — Teen Film Series" Program ($275 lottery
fund grant request)
16. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Deschutes County conducts meetings in locations that are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County also
provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For persons who are deaf or who have
hearing or speech impairments, dial 7-1-1 to access the State transfer relay services for TTY. At meetings
of the Board of County Commissioners, the County will provide an interpreter for hearing impaired
persons who make their request at least 48 hours' notice. Written information can be made available in
large print or in audio format; to request these services, please call (541) 388-6571.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have
questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Monday, February 28, 2005
8:30 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Commission on Children &
Families
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting — for the Week
2:00 p.m. Meeting with Sheriff's Office Corrections Needs Assessment Committee, at the
Sheriffs Office (MAC Center)
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 3 of 9 Pages
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
14. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extension/4-H County Service District.
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
15. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County.
16. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Deschutes County conducts meetings in locations that are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County also
provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For persons who are deaf or who have
hearing or speech impairments, dial 7-1-1 to access the State transfer relay services for TTY. At meetings
of the Board of County Commissioners, the County will provide an interpreter for hearing impaired
persons who make their request at least 48 hours' notice. Written information can be made available in
large print or in audio format; to request these services, please call (541) 388-6571.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have
questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Monday, February 28, 2005
8:30 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Commission on Children &
Families
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting — for the Week
2:00 p.m. Meeting with Sheriff's Office Corrections Needs Assessment Committee, at the
Sheriffs Office (MAC Center)
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 3 of 9 Pages
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
9:00 a.m. Administrative Liaison
Monday, March 7, 2005
3:30 p.m. Meeting of Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC)
Monday, March 14, 2005
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Community Development
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
10:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Mental Health Department
11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of Employee Benefits Advisory Committee
11:30 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the City of Bend Council, at the County
1:00 P.M. Preliminary Budget Meetings with Various Departments
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Manager of Fair/Expo Center
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
11:30 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call
Thursday, March 17, 2005
1:00 P.M. Preliminary Budget Meetings with Various Departments
Monday, March 21, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Meeting with Organizational Consultants
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 4 of 9 Pages
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Director of Tax & Finance
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
11:30 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Parole & Probation
2:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sheriff
Monday, March 28, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
2:00 p.m. Meeting with Sheriff's Office Corrections Needs Assessment Committee, at the
Sheriffs Office (MAC Center)
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Commission on Children &
Families
3:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Juvenile Community Justice
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Thursday, March 31, 2005
7:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Fire Hall
Monday, April 4, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:30 p.m. Meeting of Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC)
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 5 of 9 Pages
Thursday, April 7, 2005
8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, in Sisters
Monday, April 11, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Community Development
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
1:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Update with Information Technology
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
11:30 a.m. Legislative Update — Conference Call
1:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Forestry Specialist
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Road Department
2:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Solid Waste
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Health Department
4:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Mental Health Department
Thursday, April 14, 2005
12 noon Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee
Friday, April 15, 2005
1:00 P.M. Review of Requested Budgets
Monday, April 18, 2005
12 noon Regular Meeting of Board of Commissioners and Department Heads
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 6 of 9 Pages
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of Employee Benefits Advisory Committee
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Manager of the Fair & Expo Center
Monday, April 25, 2005
9:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the District Attorney
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
2:00 p.m. Meeting with Sheriff's Office Corrections Needs Assessment Committee, at the
Sheriffs Office (MAC Center)
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Commission on Children &
Families
3:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Juvenile Community Justice
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Director of Tax & Finance
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
11:30 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Parole & Probation
2:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sheriff
Monday, May 2, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:30 p.m. Meeting of Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC)
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Monday, May 9, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 7 of 9 Pages
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Community Development
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
11:30 a.m. Legislative Update — Conference Call
1:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Forestry Specialist, at Road
1:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Road Department, at Road
2:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Solid Waste, at Solid Waste
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Health Department, at Health
4:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Mental Health Department, at
Mental Health
Thursday, May 12, 2005
7:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Fire Hall
Monday, May 16, 2005
9:00 a.m. Administrative Liaison
1:00 P.M. Budget Committee Meeting
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
10:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Manager of the Fair & Expo Center
11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of Employee Benefits Advisory Committee
1:00 P.M. Departmental Budget Presentations
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
1:00 P.M. Departmental Budget Presentations
Thursday, May 19, 2005
1:00 P.M. Departmental Budget Presentations
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 8 of 9 Pages
Friday, May 20, 2005
1:00 P.M. Budget Approval Meeting
Monday, May 23, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Commission on Children &
Families
Thursday 26, 2005
11:30 a.m. (Tentative) Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the City of Bend Council, at the City
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Director of Tax & Finance
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
11:30 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Parole & Probation
2:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sheriff
4:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Juvenile Community Justice
Monday, May 30, 2005
Most County offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day.
Monday, May 31, 2005
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Monday, February 28, 2005
Page 9 of 9 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orp-
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2005
DISCUSSION of Proposal for Fencing along Millican Road — Tom Blust,
Road Department