Loading...
2006-890-Minutes for Meeting April 03,2006 Recorded 9/11/2006DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS Q 7006890 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0911112006 04:12:46 PM III i III I IIIIIIIIIIIII III III -80 20 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page C3 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2006 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Bev Clarno and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Blust, Roger Olson and George Kolb, Road Department; George Read, Catherine Morrow, Will Groves, Cathy White and Tom Anderson, Community Development; media representatives from Channel 21 and Christopher Stollar of The Bulletin; and nine other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an Intent to Award Contract Letter for Crushed, Pre-coated Rock for Chip Seal. Roger Olson gave an overview of the item. He said that pre-coating the rock helps it stay in place longer. The rising cost of fuel and oil affected the amount of the bid. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 1 of 15 Pages 3. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract Letter for the Overlaying of the Old Bend-Redmond Highway. George Kolb gave a brief overview of the bidding process and the work to be done. This bid was also affected by the rising cost of oil. Usually an escalation clause is not necessary for these types of bids. Larger projects, such as the Sunriver/Highway 97 interchange, often have an escalation clause because the project takes years to complete. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Regarding the bid process in general, Commissioner Luke said that if the Bulletin wants to do an editorial, they should look at the process the State uses, utilizing funds from other projects to do road work or bridges. This will mean one project a year will be done a year in a region, and the local region covers from Klamath Falls to The Dalles. 4. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-063, Declaring the Intent to Create Harrington Loop Road Local Improvement District, Accepting the Engineer's Report, Setting the Hearing Date and Authorizing Property Owner Notice. George Kolb explained that 75% of the property owners were in favor of this LID. The road is located near the Sisters rodeo grounds. DALY: Move approval. CLARNO: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 2 of 15 Pages 5. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-111, Amending Contract Documents Nos. 2003-239, 2003-376 and 2004-133 to Allow the Submission of a Tentative Subdivision Plan Application. Catherine Morrow stated this action allows Pahlisch Homes to apply for the application even though the County still owns the land. Laurie Craghead said that she worked with Pahlisch on this issue, which allows them to file a tentative plat. It removes the trust deed and promissory note in exchange for them having built the local park. DALY: Move approval. CLARNO: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a Tentative Subdivision Plan Application for Quadrants 2a, 2b and 2d in the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. Catherine Morrow said that this action allows Pahlisch Homes to submit the application. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: CLARNO LUKE: Yes. Aye. Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-117, regarding Bonding and Improvement Agreements for Infrastructure for Caldera Springs Destination Resort. Will Groves gave an overview of the item. Laurie Craghead said it should not be recorded until the original bond is attached to the document. The bond amount is over $3 million, and this amount was determined by Legal Counsel to be adequate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 3 of 15 Pages CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Discussion of Hearings on Measure 37 Claims: ■ M37-05-75, Order No. 2006-046 (Stoltz) ■ M37-05-76, Order No. 2006-047 (Peterson) ■ M37-05-77, Order No. 2006-048 (DeGaetano) ■ M37-05-73, Order No. 2006-044 (Hopp) These claims will be addressed at the Wednesday, April 5 Board meeting. 9. Before the Board was Discussion of Deliberations on Appeals of the Hearings Officer's Denial of a Proposal to Establish an Outdoor Amphitheater off Highway 20, East of Bend (Applicant: Christian Life Center). CATHY WHITE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Cathy White and I am an Associate Planner with the Deschutes County Planning Division. This morning is a work session to brief the Board to summarize the background on this issue. There are two appeals by the opponents and the applicant on the Hearings Officer's denial for a 2,000 seat amphitheater east of town at the Christian Life Center. The Board held a hearing on this in October 2005. The post-hearing schedule was revised several times at the request of the applicant and opponents. The Board issued Order No. 2006-033 that established the final post-hearing schedule, which meant essentially the applicant's final argument was due on March 3, and if anyone wanted to object to it they were to do so by March 10. We didn't receive anything like that. The Board has up to May 1 to issue a decision on the application. LUKE: When does the clock run out? LAURIE CRAGHEAD: May 1. The decision has to be issued, written and mailed by then, or the applicant could go to court on a writ of mandamus. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 4 of 15 Pages LUKE: How much time does staff need? CRAGHEAD: A minimum of two weeks. If it is a denial, I will not discuss it with the applicant's attorney. If it is an approval, the applicant's attorney would probably be doing the initial draft, which is customary for the County. She might extend the time in order to allow enough time to write it. . LUKE: Why is George (Kolb, of the Road Department) here? WHITE: In case you have any questions regarding traffic. LUKE: Questions of staff? DALY: Are you here because of traffic issues, George? Are you familiar with this issue? KOLB : (Off microphone; unintelligible.) LUKE: George, we need to get you on the microphone. KOLB : I'm George Kolb with the County Road Department. If there are any questions on the traffic studies, I can go back to the office and look up the information because I'm not familiar with it. LUKE: If this is inappropriate, Legal Counsel needs to tell me. When they were looking at closing the road just past this, Hamby - no, Erickson - KOLB : Oh, ODOT. That was Erickson and Torkelson. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 5 of 15 Pages LUKE: There was some discussion that eventually there would be a light at Hamby, once the City is out there. The County can't put a light there but the City could. That would slow down traffic in the area. KOLB : It's a possibility there could be a light at Hamby and Neff. LUKE: I meant Highway 20. ODOT told me that. KOLB : ODOT did? Normally they don't like to put in lights - I guess once it's in the City limits, then it is possible. Yeah. CRAGHEAD: I believe this information is not in the record, and can't be considered. LUKE: I'm not considering it; I'm just pointing it out. It's not a consideration. What are the options for the Commissioners on the number of events that could be allowed, if any events are allowed outside? Are there different options we can look at? CRAGHEAD: There are different options, depending on what you find about this very complicated case. If you find it is an expansion of the church to allow the amphitheater in terms of what part is expansion - the weddings, the church services, and so on - whether the concerts with 2,000 people is an expansion of the church. You could find that this is just an expansion of the church and therefore you would not have limitations on it. If you find that this particular part is not an expansion of the church, those outdoor events would then become subject to the outdoor mass gathering statutes. The other issue is, if you find it is not an expansion of the church, the church can have these outdoor services and weddings now without doing any improvements to the property, except they would be subject to - Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 6 of 15 Pages LUKE: They can or cannot? CRAGHEAD: They could have outdoor events now, but they would be subject to the mass gathering statute. This means they could have one event under 3,000 people once every three consecutive months. This means they would have to choose a maximum of four, depending on whether they want to have one in the wintertime. They would have to choose, is it four weddings, or one wedding and three concerts, that sort of thing. So you would have options to choose, depending on whether you decide this is an expansion of the church. DALY: If it is not an expansion, that triggers the outdoor mass gathering statute. CRAGHEAD: It is complicated. The outdoor mass gathering ordinance could come in either way. If you chose an expansion of the church, you might say that the 2,000 seat concerts themselves are not part of the expansion of the church; and therefore the outdoor mass gathering ordinance and statutes - because you have to look at both of them - would come in to play. Therefore, while the wedding, church services and that sort of thing - the 832 people that are just part of the church - there is a possibility that you could chose that the 2,000 seat concerts are not. And therefore they would be subject to the once every three months concert limitation. Or you could say that all of it is an expansion of the church and therefore there is no limitation on how many 2,000 seat concerts they have. The other option is if you deny and say this is not an expansion of the church facilities, as is argued by the opponents, then any of their outdoor events would be subject to the outdoor mass gathering ordinance and statutes. DALY: It wouldn't be a conditional use every time they wanted to do an outdoor concert. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 7 of 15 Pages CRAGHEAD: No, if they are under the 3,000 people and the 120 hours, and once every three consecutive months, they don't have to get land use approval. They do have to come in and coordinate with the Sheriff for security and coordinate their food and sanitary services and water and that sort of thing. Our own ordinance governs if it is over 500 people and more than 120 hours, that sort of thing. There are different definitions of outdoor mass gatherings. If it is less than 3,000 and more than 500, it would come into this, and with any continuous three-month period. So it is once every three months again. So it would come under our definition and they would have to do all the coordination with the Sheriff's Office and Environmental Health and that sort of thing. DALY: You said less than 120 hours? CRAGHEAD: That was the State statute, I see now that our code covers between 4 and 240 hours, because the statute allows us to define what an outdoor mass gathering is, and we have. LUKE: Right now, if a congregation of a church wants to step outside and conduct their services outside because it is a beautiful day, there is nothing to stop that. CRAGHEAD: They could do that under our outdoor mass gathering ordinance, but they could only do it once every three months. Up to this point, however, the County has chosen not to regulate churches in this manner. LUKE: They have to worship inside the church and cannot step outside on the lawn and conduct services there under our statute? CRAGHEAD: Under our ordinance they would need to get a permit if they are going to do it more than once every three months. However, in the past the County has not regulated churches. Because we are primarily complaint-driven for Code enforcement, we don't know when this is happening. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 8 of 15 Pages We have not enforced this against any churches. That's not just for churches; it is for any outdoor event. They need to get a permit or fall under the outdoor mass gathering ordinance. This is for any outdoor event; I'm not singling out churches here. DALY: But what Dennis just described, if we find that this is an expansion of the church, then they wouldn't have to do that, right? CRAGHEAD: Depends on how you define an expansion of the church. If you are talking about just the services, weddings, funerals and things like that outdoors, you could find that these are a normal part of the church and is just an expansion of the church and doesn't fall under this. DALY: And there wouldn't be any limit on how many they could do. CRAGHEAD: Right. Again, one other thing, the staff report pointed out to you that this the use that could be permitted as a park use, as a private park, and would need a conditional use permit. So there is a possibility of coming in for a conditional use permit if you find that it is not an expansion of the church. Big Sky Park came in under a conditional use permit, and therefore the offsite impacts were able to be looked at then. CLARNO: And under conditional use permit, how many times per year? CRAGHEAD: It's unlimited. Because it is a private park. CLARNO: Our church has a big Easter egg hunt with lots of kids. Is that considered an outdoor service, then? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 9 of 15 Pages CRAGHEAD: It would be an outdoor mass gathering, yes, unless it is less than 500 people. If they fall into the outdoor mass gathering rule, they would come and get a permit from the Board on this, because that shows they have coordinated with security, Environmental Health and that sort of thing. DALY: If we find that it is an expansion of the church. Okay. The traffic issue seems to be a big issue with the neighbors. LUKE: And noise. CRAGHEAD: That is another issue. The applicant says you can't consider it, that all you can consider are the impacts on the property itself, the site plan, even though there is the language that talks about relating harmoniously with the natural environment and surrounding development. Opponents are arguing that that if you are going to consider surrounding development, you do need to look at the offsite traffic impacts. The applicants say if you do that, you are turning it in to a conditional use permit as opposed to this being a site plan application for a use permitted outright. DALY: Okay, Cathy. You've been following this. What is your opinion? And bring the microphone in close so we can get it on the record. WHITE: It boils down to what we put in our memo. It comes down to two issues. The first issue is whether this is an expansion of a church use, and it includes the physical amphitheater structure and the proposed uses, where the proposed uses are kind of cut into two areas. One will be just their typical church activities that they hold now: weddings, church services, baptisms and so forth. The second piece is these four to six concert events per year. There are two components as to what the use constitutes. Part of the issue is that the Hearings Officer found that you have State statute in combination with the site plan review criteria limiting the County's ability to regulate a broader interpretation, such as looking at perhaps operational characteristics, such as noise, times and days of operation. So there are a couple pieces relative to that. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 10 of 15 Pages The Board could find that some or all of the activities that currently take place in the church could constitute an expansion of church use. And you could also find that the amphitheater is an expansion of church use, and therefore they could operate outside in the amphitheater those functions that they operate inside now. On the other hand, since they are operating on the inside, even if they can expand the inside, do an addition to it; that brings in our LUPA federal piece, which I don't want to confuse you with right now. The second piece is whether the expansion - let's say that you find the amphitheater is an expansion of church use - the question is whether these four to six per year 2,000 seat events are an expansion of the church. That falls into some of the analysis that Legal Counsel has provided in the memo. LUKE: This is where my problem is. I don't have a problem with weddings, baptisms or church services in the amphitheater. I think if people want to worship outside, that's great. The more you can do it in Central Oregon, good luck to you, because sometimes in December it might be a little cold. The problem I am running into is with the concerts. Now, I need some help in how to get there. I don't have a problem, if I understand correctly, with the church activities. I do have a problem with the concert part. I don't have a problem with concerts being there, but I have a problem with not regulating those concerts. WHITE: Let's stick on that piece for a minute. If the Board wants to regulate the concerts, one finding could be that these concerts are an integral part of their religious beliefs that the applicant sincerely says is an outreach event of their church to propagate the gospel of Jesus Christ. So the concerts are then an extension of the church's function as it is now. You could find that connection and then approve the amphitheater. You could put limitations on the number of events, I would think. , LUKE: We are not stopping the amount of concerts that are already taking place inside the church. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 11 of 15 Pages CRAGHEAD: Or the volume. The issue would be finding the expansion of the facility versus the expansion of the use. You are saying that an expansion of the facility is okay to build the amphitheater, and the expansion of the use is okay for the normal events that are already occurring inside the church. What you want to say is that those 2,000 seat concerts are actually a change in use, because it would be a change possibly to a commercial use as opposed to a change in the actual use of the church; it would be more than an expansion and would therefore fall under our outdoor mass gathering ordinance. LUKE: I'd feel more comfortable with that. Again, I don't have a problem with regular church activities, although the concerts are taking place inside the church now. WHITE: That's correct, although they don't have up to 2,000 people. They can hold something like 830. CRAGHEAD: And they aren't outdoors with the lighting and bands and audio equipment. CLARNO: If the church were to expand its building size to accommodate 2,000 people for an indoor concert, where would we be then? WHITE: We'd be back where we are today, looking at a site plan. And we'd be looking at the same questions. I don't know if we would have as much opposition in terms of noise. I mean, one neighbor's complaint is noise from the outdoor concerts. But we would be looking at a site plan and whether it is an expansion of an existing church in the EFU zone. LUKE: Would you be looking at traffic also? CRAGHEAD: It would be the same issue. You wouldn't have the outdoor mass gathering issues if it were inside the facility, you would still have the same - Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 12 of 15 Pages CLARNO: Would you be considering traffic impacts or not? CRAGHEAD: You have the applicants saying you should not consider the traffic impacts; but even if you do, they feel they have meet the burden of proof since they have provided the traffic engineer information that they would not cause a significant impact. The opponents say that you should look at traffic impacts, and if you do - WHITE: The reason is, in the EFU zone the expansion of an existing church only requires a site plan review. Now, J-Bar-J, just up the street, has these big events once a year. They've got a conditional use and a site plan to conduct those events. So with a conditional use application we can review offsite impacts and compatibility issues. But with a site plan, and of course this was a question raised by the applicant's attorney, you are pretty much looking at the layout and configuration. The Hearings Office found that she could go outside of the property and look at such things as traffic, and internally as to whether it is safe as it relates to site plan criteria. The applicant disagrees with that analysis and is requesting the Board overturn that. The opponents agreed, and actually wanted to broaden it and look at other operational characteristics. CRAGHEAD: There are no provisions in the site plan criteria as to how to determine contribution for off-site impacts. There are no provisions as to how to get them to pay for upgrades for traffic and that sort of thing. LUKE: It is defendable, if we decide that the amphitheater is an extension of the church and could hold regular church activities, and that the concerts would be a conditional use, falling under the County's outdoor mass gathering ordinance? CRAGHEAD: I believe it is defendable. I think you could say that it is not a substantial burden on the church and that there is a compelling government interest in protecting the uses on EFU land, and that this is the least restrictive means of getting at that compelling government interest. There would be no restriction on them being able to worship. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 13 of 15 Pages DALY: It is a complicated issue. CRAGHEAD: Does the Board want to decide this today, or do you need more time? LUKE: Well, if Mike needs to vote he has to do it today, depending on the decision of two of us on Wednesday. Why can't we do it next Wednesday? CRAGHEAD: That's a very short time frame for staff to write a decision, particularly if it is a denial. If it is an approval, I'd have to check with the applicant's attorney to find out if they'd be willing to write the decision and extend the time. LUKE: That's been my biggest concern, is the outdoor concerts. If you can divide that out, I don't have a problem going forward with this. If you need to think about it some more, you don't need to make a decision, but I think staff is looking for some guidance. CLARNO: I think my questions will be answered and I can come to a decision on Wednesday, April 5. DALY: If you two can't agree, then I'll make the decision on Thursday, April 6, at a special meeting, since I can't be here on Wednesday. A general discussion then took place regarding scheduling and noticing this meeting. This item will be addressed further at the Wednesday, April 5 Board meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 14 of 15 Pages 10. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Letters Accepting the Resignation of, and Thanking Derek Stevens, Jean Nave, Martin Hansen and Donald Stevens for their Participation on the Deschutes County Historical Society Landmarks Commission. Donald Stevens and Derek Stevens came before the Board. They discussed the years they spent on the Commission, and advised why the configuration of the group has changed due to most of the seats now being filled from within the City of Bend, since most historic structures are located within the City. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 11. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 11:20 a. m. DATED this 3rd Day of April 2006 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 15 of 15 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2006 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. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of an Intent to Award Contract Letter for Crushed, Pre-coated Rock for Chip Seal - Roger Olson, Road Department 3. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract Letter for the Overlaying of the Old Bend-Redmond Highway - George Kolb, Road Department 4. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-063, Declaring the Intent to Create Harrington Loop Road Local Improvement District, Accepting the Engineer's Report, Setting the Hearing Date and Authorizing Property Owner Notice - George Kolb, Road Department 5. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of a Tentative Subdivision Plan Application for Quadrants 2a, 2b and 2d in the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area - Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department 6. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-111, Amending Contract Documents Nos. 2003-239, 2003-376 and 2004-133 to Allow the Submission of a Tentative Subdivision Plan Application - Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 1 of 6 Pages 7. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2006-117 regarding Bonding and Improvement Agreements for Infrastructure for Caldera Springs Destination Resort - Will Groves, Community Development Department 8. DISCUSSION of Hearings on Measure 37 Claims for the Following: ■ M37-05-75, Order No. 2006-046 (Stoltz) ■ M37-05-76, Order No. 2006-047 (Peterson) ■ M37-05-77, Order No. 2006-048 (DeGaetano) 9. DISCUSSION of Deliberations (Scheduled for Wednesday, April 5) on Appeals of the Hearings Officer's Denial of a Proposal to Establish an Outdoor Amphitheater off Highway 20, East of Bend (Applicant: Christian Life Center) - Catharine White, Community Development Department 10. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Letters Accepting the Resignation of, and Thanking Derek Stevens, Jean Nave, Martin Hansen and Donald Stevens for their Participation on the Deschutes County Historical Society Landmarks Commission 11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA 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. 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, April 3, 2006 9:00 a.m. Work Session on Lundgren Home Occupation Appeal 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison 3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) Regular Meeting Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 2 of 6 Pages Tuesday, April 4, 2006 9:00 a.m. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(1)(h), Pending or Threatened Litigation regarding Measure 37 Claims (Hopp and Ward) Wednesday, April 5, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting Thursday, April 6, 2006 8:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall 1:30 p.m. Meeting with Consultant regarding County Administrator Position Applications Tuesday, Aril 11, 2006 9:00 a.m. Meeting with School Superintendents and County Representatives regarding County Services in the Schools 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison 3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Information Technology Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 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 13, 2006 10:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Community Development 12:00 noon Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee 3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Fair Board, at the Fair & Expo Office Monday, April 17, 2006 12:00 noon Regularly Scheduled Update Meeting with Department Heads 1:00 P.M. Justice Court Update 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 3 of 6 Pages Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting of Employee Benefits Advisory Committee 3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Fair & Expo Center 4:15 p.m. Ribbon Cutting Ceremony at RSVP (Retired Seniors Volunteer Program) - 202 NW Greenwood Avenue Friday, April 21, 2006 8:00 - 5:00 Interviews - County Administrator Position Applicants (tentative date/time) Saturday, April 22, 2006 8:00 - 5:00 Interviews - County Administrator Position Applicants (tentative date/time) Monday, April 24, 2006 9:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the District Attorney 10:00 a.m. Board Meeting for the Week 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison 3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Commission on Children & Families 3:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Juvenile Community Justice Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Director of Tax & Finance 12:00 noon Oregon Transportation Committee Conference Monday, May 1, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison 3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 3, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 4 of 6 Pages Monday, May 8, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison 3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Community Development Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 10:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Community Development 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, May 11, 2006 7:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Fire Hall 3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Fair Board, at the Fair & Expo Office Monday, May 15, 2006 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison Monday, May 15 through Friday, May 19 1:00 - 5:00 Budget Meetings Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Fair & Expo Center Monday, May 22, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting for the Week 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison 3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Commission on Children & Families Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 5 of 6 Pages Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Parole & Probation 2:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Juvenile Community Justice 3:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sheriff Wednesday, May 24 - Friday, May 26 2006 Association of Oregon Counties Regional Conference - Ka-Nee-Tah Monday May 29, 2006 Most County offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day. Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting for the Week Monday, June 5, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session 1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison Wednesday, June 7, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting Thursday, June 8, 2006 12:00 noon Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee 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' Work Session Agenda Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 6 of 6 Pages 1`v-TE, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2006 DISCUSSION of a Hearing (scheduled for Wednesday, April 5; continued from Wednesday, March 29) on Order No. 2006-044, a Measure 37 Claim (Claimant: Hopp) - Tom Anderson, Community Development and Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel