Loading...
2007-30-Minutes for Meeting December 04,2006 Recorded 1/12/2007DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS 30 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK CJ lid 7007 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 4111212007 04:52:44 PM 1111111111111111 1 IN 11111 2007-30 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 and Page or as Fee Number Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Bev Clarno. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Commissioner-elect Tammy Baney; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Catherine Morrow and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department; media representatives Barney Lerten and another person from News Channel 21; and approximately twenty 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 Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2006-035, Relating to Solar Setback Requirements in the La Pine New Neighborhood. Laurie Craghead explained that this document is ready for the second reading. It only affects the New Neighborhood area in La Pine. DALY: Move second reading by title only. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 1 of 16 Pages DALY: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2006-035 LUKE: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. The Measure 37 disclosure statement was offered to all attendees. 3. Before the Board was a Hearing (continued from October 30) and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-150, a Measure 37 Claim (Claimant: Hanson). Tom Anderson stated that the property is on 3rd Street, between Bend and Redmond, west of Young Avenue. The claimants wish to subdivide the property into residential lots, with the smallest being five acres. They are claiming damages of $1 million. The first document regarding ownership appears in a contract dated March 1, 1976. They agreed to a lease with the parents earlier than that, in 1974, and took occupancy. For purposes of review, the date would be Mach 1, 1976. Commissioner Luke asked if there have been any decisions at the State level regarding lease agreements. Mr. Pilliod replied that the Board has never addressed this situation directly; the only case of which he is aware is Leeson. They had conveyed to a corporation and continued to reside on the property; it's unknown if there was a lease arrangement in place, but the property was under their control. County laws between 1974 and 1976 hadn't changed. This may make a difference to the State, as planning goals had been adopted but not yet implemented. It is irrelevant for County purposes. Commissioner Luke disclosed that he has known the Hansons for a long time. He asked for any testimony in favor of the claim. Ed Fitch, an attorney representing the Hansons, said they have no objection to the Order per se, since County regulations remained unchanged between 1974 and 1976. However, they do feel the real acquisition date is 1974. In regard to testimony against the claim, Mark Pilliod said he received a letter from Ms. Hardy of Central Oregon Land Watch, which was distributed to the Board and to Community Development, and is now a part of the record. Mr. Pilliod did not know if she is within the notification area for the property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 2 of 16 Pages CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-168, a Measure 37 Claim (Claimant: Leep). Tom Anderson stated that Karen Leep filed the claim regarding property located off SW McVey Avenue. It is two parcels between Bend and Redmond near Quarry Road, located on both sides of the Deschutes River. The parcels are 1.76 acres and 3 acres, zoned EFU. The claimant wishes to replace an existing residence that was constructed in 1974, in the same location. Since then, rules had been adopted by the County regarding rimrock and height regulations. The waiver would go back to the date of acquisition of April 7, 1983. Some rimrock rules were adopted between 1983 and 1986. The Order would place the review date on April 7, 1983. Bruce White, attorney for the claimant, said he supports the proposed Order. He asked if any comments in writing had been received. Tom Anderson confirmed that nothing had come in. Commissioner Daly disclosed that he knows Ron Leep personally. There was no other testimony. CLARNO: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-170, a Measure 37 Claim (Claimant: Reames). Tom Anderson explained that the applicant is John Reames, and the property is located at 26776 Alfalfa Market Road, west of Alfalfa and east of Dodds Road, and consists of two parcels totally 39 acres, zoned EFU. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 3 of 16 Pages The claimant wishes to place a farm dwelling or a residence on the property. The claim for damages is $492,000. The property was acquired in February 1986; at that time it consisted of 120 acres. In 1990 it was divided into three parcels. Rules regarding farm dwellings changed in the early 1990's. He would like to file an application for a farm dwelling based on the rules in effect in 1986. Bruce White, attorney for the claimant, said that they support the proposed Order, and asked if any written testimony had been received. Tom Anderson said that the previous Friday they received a letter from Central Oregon Land Watch; this is the same letter they have received regarding other Measure 37 claims. Nothing specific to this property was noted; it simply argues against the County's ability to rule on Measure 37 claims. Mr. White asked to continue the hearing so he would have a chance to read the letter. The hearing was continued to Monday, December 11, 2006. 6. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-169, a Measure 37 Claim (Claimant: Huttenhoff). Tom Anderson said the claimant has requested the hearing be delayed to January. The 180-day clock has been tolled if needed. 7. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-069, to Consider Additional Information and to Correct References regarding a Measure 37 Waiver (Applicant: Central Electric Cooperative). Commissioner Luke said that he has been approached by Legal staff regarding marking exhibits during hearings. Mark Pilliod said that there can be difficulties sometimes created regarding documents during land use applications. Today exhibits will be specifically identified as they are received. No oral testimony will be taken, but there could be written testimony. The Board received quite a number of documents earlier in the day and previously. This issue was first considered in August 2005. At that time there was a Measure 37 claim submitted by Central Electric Cooperative, Inc., and there were documents and arguments presented by Trail Crossing Trust and by Keith and Connie Cyrus. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 4 of 16 Pages Following the Board's decision, the Trust and the Cyrus' appealed that decision to the Circuit Court. The Court held a hearing and received arguments, and rendered a decision. That decision, in summary, rejected the arguments presented and approved the Board's Order to the extent that it could. Unfortunately, the Board's Order failed to include the necessary legal description of the various easement properties that were the subject of the Measure 37 claim. The Court remanded, or suggested that the Board should undertake additional proceedings to add a description of the properties involved. The Board previously had adopted an Order which simply included all of the properties that were affected by the CEC easements. Some of those easements were dated 1962, while others were dated more recently, 2001. That decision was likewise appealed to the Circuit Court, and those proceedings have been placed in abeyance; they are sort of pending and nothing has happened yet. After the Board made its follow-up decision, the Circuit Court announced and rendered its decision, and the decision invited the County to examine, again, the descriptions of the properties that were affected by these easements. My staff and the County Surveyor have done so. Through that examination it was determined that certain historical documentation that might have provided a little better background to the particular easements that CEC acquired, or the rights that they acquired in order to build their power line, had not been previously submitted into the record. So, part of the proceedings this morning is the County, having assembled this additional information - mind you, information that was not previously submitted to the Board - would be received this morning, and that anyone interested, in particular the Trail Crossing group and the Cyrus', would have an opportunity to comment on the new material being submitted. LUKE: Comment in writing? PILLIOD: Correct. Today was the deadline for the Board to officially reopen the record on this limited issue. The County has received certain documentation from the parties that I will describe. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 5 of 16 Pages First, I have a letter dated November 30, from Donald Joe Willis of Schwab Williams and Wyatt Law Firm. This was received last Thursday, and contains both a letter and a number of documents, easements that had previously had been received by this Board as part of its original proceedings. In addition, there are historical letters that describe the circumstances under which CEC obtained easements in 2001. I also received and I think additional copies were submitted of a letter from Michael Peterkin and Associates, dated December 1, 2006. The letter includes a number of attached exhibits. These likewise refer to the proceedings in Circuit Court and the circumstances under which CEC obtained its easements to the property that we have been dealing with. This morning I received another letter from Brian Kickman? Of Peterkin and Associates that refers to the circumstances under which a particular easement was obtained from the Carters. This includes some documentation and an affidavit. I also received a letter from Frances Hanson and Martin dated December 1, 2006. It is from Martin Hanson, and it responds to the material that I previously described. LUKE: I believe you just received one more. PILLIOD: Yes. This is a letter from Kay Knott, dated Sunday. Ms. Knott writes in opposition of the reconstructed CEC power lines. I think she is inviting the cooperative to undertake acquisition of necessary property through condemnation. These are the materials that have been submitted. As I say, they address an issue that was presented to the Board in August 2005; that is, that the 2001 easements have the effect of releasing or quit claiming the rights that were contained in certain easements obtain in 1962. The Judge has not instructed that the Board has to revisit this issue. The only issue that the Judge's decision places before this Board is the adequacy of the description in connection with the CEC Measure 37 waiver that was issued. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 6 of 16 Pages And I should add - and I think part of the reason for scheduling this matter for today or this month is we obviously are looking at a change in the membership of the Board, and since Commissioner Clarno is more familiar with the record than any new Commissioner, it just seems that if necessary it would be more fair if she have the opportunity to participate than for a new Commissioner to become familiar with the record. LUKE: For the record, Commissioner Clarno has stated more than once that he husband sits on CEC's Board, and she would just as soon not vote unless we have a tie vote. For clarification, on the Kay Knott letter, it was Keith Cyrus who handed it to Tom Anderson, just for the record. DALY: I have a question for Mr. Pilliod. Most of this new documentation we received from the parties has alleged fraud and misrepresentation by CEC. It even says they lied. I know I had a discussion this morning about this, and don't know if we should even get into that issue. I do have one question, however. The documents that have been presented to us by Schwabe Williamson and Wyatt, Joe Willis I believe, show power line easements and all of the highlighted part in the power line easement has to do with this power line easement by quitclaims and releases all interest arising out of that certain right of way easement. My question is, when I took real estate 101 years ago, it was always drummed into my head that interest in property can only be transferred with a deed. I don't see a quitclaim deed, a separate document. Is that quitclaim deed considered as included in this easement? Or is there a separate deed out there somewhere. PILLIOD: There is no deed, quitclaim or otherwise per se. The language you are referring to is the language that would ordinarily operate in context or in the form of a quitclaim deed. In other words, the language is very similar to language that would be contained in a quitclaim deed, but there is no other documentation than what you have. DALY: So, what you are saying is that this document here actually - they've got a new easement, and quitclaimed the old easement, and it is all in one document and all recorded at the exact same time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 7 of 16 Pages PILLIOD: That's correct. I'm not sure I know which one you are referring to. I'm happy to pull that out. DALY: I'm looking at the Eva Thornburgh one, but they all seem to be identical, as far as the document itself and the language. The wording about the quitclaim is highlighted in each one of them. It appears that the parties would like us to make some kind of a decision on that issue; I don't know. Is that something we should be doing? PILLIOD: Well, I think that the Board has previously received these same documents. The 2001 easements have been part of the record since a year and a half ago. The argument was presented to the Board at that time. The Judge has not instructed the Board to revisit that issue. So the question is, I guess, could you. I suppose you could, but I'm concerned about creating some bit of confusion in terms of the decision the Board has already made, if the argument is one that the Board has already had before it and has addressed. I think Commissioner DeWolf was on the Board at that time. It's up to you whether you go there, but realize that the argument was one that you had previously received. LUKE: Clearly with the scope of this claim, it isn't going to stop here no matter what we do. I would imagine one way or another it will be back in court. PILLIOD: That may be true, and I don't doubt it, but it is still incumbent upon this Board to make a decision based on evidence in the record and what it needs to decide, recognizing that it already has a history of having made a decision in this case. DALY: If I might. The documents, at least the allegations, are here that this new evidence has appeared since that court hearing and was not made available to the court for a decision. As far as documents that were not produced by Central Electric Cooperative in a timely manner. So therefore we - PILLIOD: I would rather not talk about documents in general. We really need to identify particularly what it is we are referring to, unless you mean everything that has been submitted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 8 of 16 Pages DALY: Well, I guess my concern is that I want to give all of the parties equal time and diligence as far as making a decision on this case. The parties have brought up some other issues that I realize that particular issue was decided, but they have also cited other reasons we should look it again. I don't care - I mean, it will be up to the majority of this Board. PILLIOD: Now if there is other material from the previous record that you would like staff to assemble or produce for you to reexamine, I'm certainly happy to do that. I mean, this is a lot of material coming at you at the l lth hour. If you are concerned that everyone have an opportunity to present material, if there is some uncertainty about what the Board previously decided, I would recommend that you continue the matter; realizing again that you have a limited calendar in December. There is nothing that mandates this decision even be made this month. LUKE: Where are we with the clock, or is there one? PILLIOD: There isn't one. In fact, one of the parties requested that the matter be continued indefinitely so that yet additional information can be presented. I am not encouraging that, but the Board does not have to reach a decision this morning or, for that matter, this month. But, again - LUKE: Do we have to reach one at all? PILLIOD: Well, the Judge has not insisted that the Board conduct further proceedings. It's my opinion that the decision made by the Board is significantly flawed if it is confined to the decision that was reached in August. I would recommend that at a minimum the Board's decision should include the appropriate legal description - LUKE: I thought we did that in a subsequent meeting. PILLIOD: Yes, you did. The documentation to support that was only submitted this morning. That's part of the reason why I'm sort of discounting the first amendment that the Board adopted this year. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 9 of 16 Pages LUKE: So, at the minimum, County Counsel would like a better clarification of the legal descriptions that we did in the second decision. PILLIOD: Yes. LUKE: Is there anything else that would help strengthen the record from the County's perspective? PILLIOD: No. The Order at a minimum would probably focus on the new material that the County submitted in terms of background information on the history behind the easements themselves. I have no objection to the record including the material that was submitted by the parties in this case. To the extent that the Board makes a decision and it is appealed, it would be submitted to the court as part of the County's record. DALY: I'm concerned that - and I guess my question would be to you, Mark - if we should not go any further, taking our prior decision, did those quitclaim deeds extinguish their rights to that property. And then they have a new date of 2001 when the new easements took effect. I mean, that's the whole crux of everybody's issue here. Did CEC lose that property right when they quitclaimed the easement and go the new easements? That's an issue before us that we apparently already decided on. LUKE: If we did open it up on that question, you're going to get one side that comes in and says "yes", and another side that says "no" with equal vigor, and it's going to be with County Counsel, and I don't know what they'll say. DALY: I agree, Dennis. I think we have that before us now. My question for you, Mark, is if we do not decide on that issue, we have already decided and let it go, will the parties have an opportunity to present this argument in court at a later time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 10 of 16 Pages PILLIOD: They can certainly argue that whatever the substance of the Board's decision was, whether it there was substantial evidence to support it, they can at least argue if the Board chooses not to reexamine the issue and render a new decision based on the material presented. I would think it would be difficult for them to state a whole case around that failure to do so in Circuit Court. Certainly it is part of the record so they aren't precluded from making such an argument, but they would have to show that the Board committed legal error in failing to reexamine or examine this particular issue with the additional documentation that has been submitted. CLARNO: Point of clarification, because I am getting confused. Because I thought the issue before us today was not what we've just been discussing. It's already been decided. So what is before us today is a point of whether CEC did in fact not include the description, whether by error or a mistake. PILLIOD: When the Board adopted the original decision, the original Order, the legal description that had been attached to it did not describe the series of property interests that comprised their power line, that is the CEC power line. The transmission line from roughly Eagle Crest to the eastern border of the City of Sisters. The Judge recognized that and for that reason entered an order that sent the matter back to the Board. The documentation and the legal description to support a decision by the Board for the full extent of that line have been submitted and as of today's proceedings is part of the record. The Board was given certain documentation regarding 2001 easements that included the point that Commissioner Daly; it included language that looks a lot like a quitclaim, releasing an interest that CEC had obtained in 1962. The legal effect of that release was an issue that was presented and available for the Board to address and consider when it made its original decision. Now, additional supportive material has been received this morning, which Trail Crossing and Cyrus would submit is evidence that CEC intentionally mislead the Board as to the legal effect of that transaction. - in other words, the 2001 easement and the release of the 1962 easement. That matter has been previously submitted, albeit not to the same degree as it has been this morning. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 11 of 16 Pages So, I hope I'm getting around to an answer to your question. The Board has material that it is being asked to describe in a sense by the Court - what is the description of the property that has been affected - and as part of the reopening, if you will, of this record, the Board and the County have received considerably more material having to do with this transaction that the Board has previously been given to address. So, you have a separate question as to whether you wish to revisit the nature of that transaction. One thing that Commissioner Daly said earlier was whether the 2001 easement by its own language had the effect of releasing the easement that CEC obtained in 1962. And it certainly would appear that this is the intention behind that language. But if I'm not mistaken, one of the comments that Commissioner Luke made at the time was whether CEC's interest in property for Measure 37 purposes has been interrupted. Was there ever a point in time when, between 1962 and the time when the County considered the Measure 37 claim by CEC, when there was a break or an interruption in an interest in property. And I think that was the decision that the Board reached back in August, that despite the language quitclaiming the 1962 easement, that there was no break in the ownership interest of CEC. I think that is the nature of the decision that was reached a year and a half ago. So the question then is, do you want to revisit that, based on the additional information that was received this morning. Does that answer your question? CLARNO: I think pretty much. LUKE: I won't ask him another one. It is a very complicated case. Commissioner Daly, what would you like to do? DALY: Well, you know if there was substantial evidence here that our previous decision was wrong, I would be more than happy to revisit it. However, I feel that the one document, with no quitclaim deed and no deed recorded at a separate time or anything, the one document which quitclaims the old interest and adds the new interest, was recorded at exactly the same time. I think the ownership interest that CEC had probably did not break, and is probably seamless. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 12 of 16 Pages So, if we did revisit it, unless there is other substantial evidence to the contrary, I probably would not change my mind. However, I am extremely upset with CEC for the way they handled it, going ahead with the construction of the line before all of these court cases were done. I think that was way beyond what they should have been doing. But, you know, that's the decision I would probably make unless there is some other evidence I don't know about. That one document to me, as far as Measure 37 is concerned, shows the interest is still there and that they had the interest since early days, and it wasn't broken by this new document as far as I can tell. LUKE: So, what would you like to do? DALY: I think we should probably address the issue before us, and let the other issue go. LUKE: What is it that County Counsel would like for the record? Or do you want to come back? PILLIOD: Maybe the other Commissioners would want to express their views of the matter. LUKE: The only question I had was the accuracy, as you mentioned, of the easements. You are indicating that we now have information in the record that is a lot more accurate than it was before. I am more than happy to adopt that for the record. I'm sure it's going to go other places before a final decision is made. CLARNO: I will abstain from making any comments on the record unless I need to vote. And I would like to state on the record that my husband is on the Board of CEC. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 13 of 16 Pages PILLIOD: If the Board is inclined to approach just the issue of the legal description, then I would submit that the Board adopt a motion to direct staff to prepare an Order which would have the effect of adopting or, you might say, reaffirming the decision that was made, with the amendment to include the legal description. I probably would recommend that it also nullify or perhaps void the first amendment, because that is sort of just a loose end lingering out there. This would be the amendment that would encompass the Order with the necessary legal description. LUKE: I don't think the previous Order was wrong; it was just incomplete. Is that your point? PILLIOD: Yes. LUKE: Is this something you'd like to do? DALY: Yes. LUKE: So, we're not adopting an Order; we are just giving staff direction to draft an Order. PILLIOD: I would prepare an Order for the Board's adoption next Monday. LUKE: Before we close this out, I would just like to ask if there is anything else anyone wants to submit in writing, today. PILLIOD: It would have to be right now. LUKE: What do you have? Michael Peterkin has another piece. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 14 of 16 Pages TOM ANDERSON: Commissioners, I apologize, but I realized that on either Thursday or Friday of last week I received an e-mail from a couple who lives in the Eagle Crest area. The e-mail pertained to this decision, and was very brief. LUKE: Anything that has been received before 11:00 a.m. today is already in the record, whether it be electronic or whatever. As long as it is in writing of some kind. We did receive one more piece. PILLIOD: The item that was suggested is actually a page out of the County Code, and it doesn't need to be part of the record. If the person wishes they can launch an argument in any form they want and simply refer to the County Code. LUKE: What kind of motion do you want? PILLIOD: Just a motion directly staff to prepare an Order. DALY: I move that we direct staff to prepare an Order as explained earlier. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Abstain. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Commissioner Luke stated that the record is now closed. The Order will come back to the Board with a clarification of the one point. He asked if Legal had anything to add. Mark Pilliod replied he had nothing more at this point. Commissioners Luke and Daly will not be in the office on Monday, December 11, so the meeting will need to be canceled or conducted via conference call. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 15 of 16 Pages 8. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda. None were offered. Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at.11:10 a. m. DATED this 4th Day of December 2006 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: 67&~ `-~t.~Ce/L- Recording Secretary nnis R. Luke, Chifir h-(9`~ - Bev Clarno, Vice Chair M. Daly, C/ommissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 16 of 16 Pages E S { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA - LAND USE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 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. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2006-035, Relating to Solar Setback Requirements in the La Pine New Neighborhood - Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department 3. A HEARING (continued from October 30) and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-150, a Measure 37 Claim (Claimant: Hanson) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 4. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-168, a Measure 37 Claim (Claimant: Leep) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 5. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006- a Measure 37 Claim (Claimant: Reames) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 6. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006- , a Measure 3 7 Claim (Claimant: Huttenhoff) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 1 of 5 Pages 7. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Order No. 2006-069, to Consider Additional Information and to Correct References regarding a Measure 37 Waiver (Applicant: Central Electric Cooperative) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel 8. 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. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, December 4, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting - Central Electric Cooperative Hearing 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session 3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) Meeting 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting of Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners regarding Destination Resorts Wednesday, December 6 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, December 7, 2006 11:00 a.m. Terrebonne Kiosk Dedication Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 2 of 5 Pages Monday, December 11, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board Meeting for the Week 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Update with the Judges - Ernesto's Restaurant Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:30 a.m. Oregon Youth Challenge Graduation 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, December 14, 2006 3:00 p.m. Regular meeting of the Fair Board, at the Fair/Expo Center Monday, December 18, 2006 12:00 noon Regular Meeting of Department Heads and Commissioners 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee 2:00 p.m. Redmond Fire Plan Signing Ceremony - Redmond Fire Station Wednesday, December 20, 2006 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session Monday, December 25, 2006 Most County offices will be closed to observe Christmas. Wednesday, December 27, 2006 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting - to be held only if last-minute items must be addressed before the end of the year Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Pages Monday, January 1, 2007 Most County offices will be closed to observe New Years Day. Tuesday, January 2, 2007 8:00 a.m. Swearing-in of New County Commissioner and Other Elected Officials Wednesday, January 3, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, January 4, 2007 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, New Sisters City Hall Monday, January 8, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session 3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) Meeting Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 11:15 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Tuesday, January 11, 2007 7:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Council Chambers Monday, January 15, 2007 Most County offices will be closed to observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 4 of 5 Pages Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, January 22, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 11:15 a.m. Legislative Update Conference Call 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:00 a.m. Board Goal Setting Retreat - McMenamin's Monday, January 29, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, February 5, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) 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' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 4, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Pages