Loading...
2007-412-Minutes for Meeting March 13,2007 Recorded 4/3/2007COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKS ICJ Z00~'~~~ COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 04103/2007 02;Z0;4Z PM ■1.■1.1■ 1103....■.......... 2007-412 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 O 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 BUSINESS MEETING - LAND USE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioner Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson and Barbara Rich, Community Development Department; media representative Greg Gulbrandsen of Fox TV, Kate Ramsayer of The Bulletin and Barney Lerten of News Channel 21; and sixteen other citizens. Chair Michael M. Daly opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-043, a Measure 37 Claim (Craig). This item was continued from February 13. Mark Pilliod explained that the County received a number of documents from the claimant's attorney, including a letter from the Craigs and other documents. They do not address the issue of the transfer of title, although the Craigs are living there apparently with the permission of the owners. Bob Lovlien, representing the applicant, said this has been difficult since the claimants lost their paperwork during a burglary. Nothing could be found in the County's archives prior to 1984. In 1984 they converted the single-wide mobile home to a double-wide manufactured home, and obtained permits in their name. Electrical hookups were obtained from as far back as 1978. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 1 of 14 Pages The credit union still had their 1978 loan application in their files, showing the loan amount and the payments to be made to the father, the owner of the property. A real estate contract between the father and the brother from 1984 was found; it references the fact that the other brother was in control of the property then. This indicates that they in fact had been buying the property from their father. They also are named as owners on the Sheriff's report of the burglary. Mr. Lovlien stated that this documentation substantiates their claim. An oral agreement can be enforced by the courts based on other performance, even if there is nothing specific in writing. Commissioner Luke stated that unless you were the owner or authorized representative of the owner, it was difficult at that time to get a permit to do anything on a property. Mr. Anderson replied that he doesn't know when this practice changed, but currently you don't have to be the owner to obtain a permit. No kind of evidence of ownership is required at this point, but the process could have been different in previous years. Mr. Lovlien stated the permitting does go back to 1978, per the documents; this corresponds with the dates of the other documents. Mark Pilliod said that DLCD concluded that the acquisition date was 1986, but they may have not received the same information. Mr. Lovlien stated that they have not gotten this information, nor has he seen their report. Commissioner Luke stated that the rules regarding land in the 1970's were very different. A lot of times agreements were not put into writing; a handshake was enough. In his experience only the owner or the registered representative of the owner applied for permits at that time. He appreciates the position of staff, but feels that the date would be before 1986. Commissioner Daly asked if they are trying to make legal what was done in the past. Mr. Lovlien replied that is exactly what they want to do. There are two residences there now and have been for some time. Mr. Anderson observed that there is just one parcel, however. They would have to do a legal partition and obtain a waiver from the State as well, per Mr. Pilliod. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 2 of 14 Pages Commissioner Baney said that if they sold the property, they could not sell it to be developed. Mr. Pilliod stated that after the waiver is obtained and a partition is allowed, they could sell the property but it might be difficult for the new owner to obtain a building permit. Mr. Anderson said that this could be debated. If they got both waivers and obtained a partition, the lot is then legally created and is a legal lot. If someone wanted to put in a replacement dwelling, there is possibly no further land use action required. Commissioner Daly asked if one of the mobile homes is not legal. Mr. Anderson said there is only one dwelling approved at this point, but no code enforcement is occurring at this time. Commissioner Daly said the Order gives a date of 1986, which won't help these people with what they want to do. Commissioner Luke stated there is evidence in the record that they had an interest in the property prior to that date. Commissioner Baney agreed. Commissioner Daly said that this is a problem for him since one residence is not legally established. Mr. Lovlien suggested April 12, 1978, as the date that can be substantiated, when they obtained the permit. Dana Craig said that he agrees, but his brother who owns the other 2.5 acres did not want to proceed with the land use action at the time. The other dwelling is stick-built. Commissioner Daly observed that they seemed to know they needed to go further and should have done so. LUKE: Move the acquisition date in the order and staff report be changed to April 12, 1978, based on substantial evidence. BANEY: Second. You have been able to find a lot of relevant information and I have faith in your statements. I don't want to set precedent, but the documentation seems to lead back to 1978. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes no. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 3 of 14 Pages 3. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-056, a Measure 37 Claim (Marks). Tom Anderson said the property is located east of Cloverdale Road, southeast of Sisters near Highway 126, at the east end of Ivy Road, and is 10.5 acres zoned MUA-10. The desired use is to partition the property into two five-acre lots. The amount of damage claimed is $214,331. The ownership is different for the two claimants. John Marks originally acquired the property via land sale contract on September 7, 1976; a warranty deed followed on June 12, 1977. It appears that Douglas Hieronimus died in 1985 and probate transferred his interest to his parents in October 1989. The parents' interest then transferred to Marshall Hieronimus, a claimant, and another son through a bargain and sale deed in 1989. John and Marshall Hieronimus own the property jointly today. Based on Measure 37 in terms of ownership interest, the Order establishes an acquisition date for John Marks of September 7, 1976, and for Marshall Hieronimus on May 22, 1989. Therefore, the rights are different for each one. If John Marks were to submit a land use application, the 1976 date would apply, which was PL-5, with a five-acre minimum. If Marshall Hieronimus submitted an application, the rules in place in 1989 would apply and a partition would probably not be allowed. No letters of opposition were received. Commissioner Baney asked if both filed, and how would this move forward. Mr. Anderson replied that there have been other cases with split acquisition dates; what is considered is the name on the land use application. Chair Daly opened up the hearing for comments. No one testified. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 4 of 14 Pages 4. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-057, a Measure 37 Claim (Maguire). Mr. Anderson said the property is located on Burgess Road outside of La Pine, and consists of 4.3 acres zoned RR-10 with a wildlife overlay. The claimant wishes to subdivide it into four one-acre lots, and the amount of damage claimed is $300,000. The property was acquired by the claimant on January 31, 1978 via a warranty deed, and ownership has been continuous since then. At the time PL-5 zoning with an RR-1 subzone was in place, allowing a one-acre minimum lot size. This was between the time Oregon land use rules were established and then implemented in Deschutes County, so a State permit is required. There were no letters of opposition. Commissioner Luke asked if a septic system is allowed on one-acre parcels. Mr. Anderson replied that it depends on the characteristics of the property, but may have them now. Chair Daly opened the public hearing at this time. Joe Tollifer, representing the claimants, stated that the claimants are happy with the proposed Order. No further testimony was offered. BANEY: Move signature. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes 5. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-058, a Measure 37 Claim (Morrison). Mr. Anderson stated that the property, located at 4622 W. Antler Ave., west of Helmholtz and the City of Redmond, is outside of the urban growth boundary and city limits, but is inside the new urban reserve area. The City was notified, but had no comments. If a land use application is submitted, the County will solicit comments from the City. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 5 of 14 Pages The desired use is to partition the property, which is 10.5 acres zoned MUA-10, into two five-acre lots. The amount of damage claimed is $200,000. The property was acquired via land sale contract on June 13, 1972, and was conveyed via warranty deed in 1973. Ownership has been continuous since 1972. PL-2 zoning was in effect at the time, and a partition would likely have been allowed. There were no letters of opposition received. Chair Daly opened the hearing. Lisa Klemp, attorney for the claimant, said they agree with the Order and staff report. No other testimony was offered. BANEY: Move signature LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes 6. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-059, a Measure 37 Claim (LPP Resources). (This item was addressed last.) Tom Anderson said the claim was submitted by LPP Resources Limited Parternship, and is a new and separate claim from the one previously submitted. However, it involves the same property, which is located off Paulina Lake Road inside the Newberry National Monument, at the southwest corner of East Lake in the eastern part of the caldera. The property is 156 acres zoned open space and conservation with a landscape management overlay. The claimant desires to utilize the property for pumice mining, geothermal exploration and development, and also subdivide it for residential uses. The claim amount is in excess of $203 million. The ownership description is quite lengthy. From today, going back, the current owner is LPP Resources Limited Partnership, which formed in December 1988 by James Miller and Frederick Webber as general partners. La Pine Pumice, the previous owner of the property, is included as a limited partnership, and was formed by James Miller and others in 1969. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 6 of 14 Pages It was conveyed to the partnership in 1988 via warranty deed as part of a mineral patent granted to Claire Williamson on July 3, 1980. At about the same time she conveyed the property to La Pine Pumice Company via a bargain and sale deed on October 31, 1980. Records of the U.S. government indicate that Williamson had an unpatented mining claim from prior to 1969 until 1980 when it was formally patented. Four separate claims from Williamson were attempted in 1980, but only one was granted. The claimant believes that the Measure 37 claim began with the 1979 agreement with Claire Williamson. The claimant asserts that the 1969 lease option with Ms. Williamson establishes the date of the claim. The staff report outlines the history of the property and the debate. Mr. Pilliod pointed out two questions that have a bearing on this. One is whether the merger of the corporation into LPP Resources resulted in LPP having the interest that La Pine Pumice did not have in 1988. La Pine Pumice legally dissolved. In order for a Measure 37 claim to succeed, the claimant must establish the property as owned by them or their family; these are generally referred to as natural persons, or a legal entity owned by those persons. There are serious reservations in this regard. He said he also received a letter from the U. S. government, who may wish to testify. Based on the belief that La Pine Pumice did not have a Measure 37 interest when it merged with the other, the appropriate acquisition date should be 1988. Commissioner Daly noted that the staff report uses the word "merged". If assets or a company move into another entity, is this different from selling the assets? Mr. Pilliod replied that they are using merger in a legal sense, which is a statutory procedure when one entity replaces another entity. Statute in place in 1988 did not have a mechanism in place for this type of merger. Commissioner Daly asked if what they did in 1988 was not legally allowed; Mr. Pilliod said that under Oregon law, it was not. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 7 of 14 Pages Victor Van Houten, attorney for the claimant, said that he submitted a memo last week that explains their version and why LPP Resources should be considered the owner back to 1969. The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear for a hundred years that an unpatented mining claim is a real property interest, as there is no requirement to ever obtain a patent. Oregon law regarding mining claims is the same, through statutory and case law. Mr. Van Houten then gave an overview of the substance of his previous memo. He said that it is clear that Measure 37 protects lease option agreements allowing the total and exclusive use of property; they had an unlimited right to mine and sell ore, with a royalty to Ms. Williamson. Measure 37 protects ownership rights from regulations that restrict use. As far as the interest in this claim, La Pine Pumice had a right to mine and sell ore, and Ms. Williamson was only to receive royalties. The other thing Measure 37 addresses is compensating an owner for a loss of interest. The affected entity is La Pine Pumice, which should benefit from the full value. It is clear that Measure 37 provides for this. Commissioner Luke asked if it is Mr. Van Houten's testimony that they cannot mine the property currently. Mr. Van Houten replied that has been restricted by the County in terms of quantity. Mr. Van Houten stated that in terms of converting the organizational form of business, in 1988 there was a well-recognized procedure; that's when La Pine Pumice did a conversion from a corporation to a limited partnership. This was in part because the IRS said you can't take real property out of a corporation without facing double taxation. The shareholders remained the owners of the business without a change of percentages or amounts. There was no change in ownership, assets or other items except for the significance for the IRS. In 1999 this was codified by the State in statute under limited partnerships. The business entity continued its existence without a change of property vesting or reversion. Obligations remained obligations of the business. Legal proceedings continued unchanged and there was no substitution of the parties. The legislative intent was not a change of ownership. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 8 of 14 Pages When Measure 37 passed, everyone was well aware of this. The intent of Measure 37 is not to treat this 1988 change as a change in ownership. This is grossly unfair and illogical, since it was forced by tax reasons, and is a violation of due process of the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution. Mr. Pilliod's analysis on the corporate merger statute that applied at the time does not apply to Measure 37, as Measure 37 makes it clear that this was not a change in ownership, just a tax structure change. Also, as a matter of law all assets transfer unimpaired from one entity to another and continuity remains when businesses merge. What La Pine Pumice had at the time were all the rights of ownership of the property, subject to a certain zoning, and those rights remain after the merger. Therefore there is no change of ownership under Measure 3 7. Commissioner Daly said he wants to be clear; that La Pine Pumice was a corporation that transferred into LPP Resources with the same stockholders, and there were no changes at all. Mr. Van Houten confirmed this, and said all assets were transferred when this occurred in December 1988. Commissioner Daly asked how this transfer differs from those when people transfer property into a revocable trust. Mr. Pilliod stated that the procedures for both are set out in State law. A revocable trust can be eliminated at the will of those who created it. The situation with La Pine Pumice is that this merger was not allowed by statute at the time it occurred in 1988. It may be a well recognized procedure, but he is unable to find State law that provided a process similar to a revocable trust. The procedure was available in 1999, but was not established in 1988. Mr. Pilliod added that corporations are creatures of statute. There are necessary filings and procedures to follow, and there are unique and special rights allowed by State law. Before mergers could occur, State law needed to provide for it. At the time this was attempted in 1988, statute did not provide for it, but didn't say you couldn't do it, either. But to convert in 1988 was not provided under State law. It is unknown when the legislature made sweeping changes whether it grandfathered those mergers that were purported prior to 1999, so it is speculation to assume the merger took place. It is unknown what well- recognized procedure would have allowed for it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 9 of 14 Pages Mr. Van Houten stated that in a section of a lawyer reference book called "Advising Oregon Businesses", the legislative history of cross-entity conversion is discussed, giving the pros and cons. (He gave a copy to Mr. Pilliod.) It was not prohibited at the time, it just wasn't recognized by statute until 1999. The advent of LLC's and LLP's spurred the legislature into making clarifications. Mr. Pilliod said that he had never seen this information before, which is a chapter out of treatise. In terms of legislative history, before 2000 only a few forms of business were permitted, and some combinations were not authorized. Mr. Van Houten stated that this is in regard to statutory authorization, but there are non-statutory conversions listed later in the document. No other testimony in favor of the claimant was offered. David Jones, the owner of East Lake Resort, asked if he could speak. Tom Anderson noted that under Measure 37, only entities within 250 feet of the boundaries of the subject property are noticed and allowed to testify orally. The only entity that received notice was the U.S. Forest Service. Commissioner Luke advised Mr. Jones that he can submit written testimony if he wants. At this time Bob Dean, representing the U.S. Forest Service - Deschutes National Forest, testified. He said that the parcel is surrounded by National Forest and is of great interest to the Forest Service and the public. The property is in the center of the caldera zone of the Newberry National Monument. He said they concur with the staff report and analysis. From a layperson standpoint, there is evidence that the merger of LPP Resources and La Pine Pumice was not a straightforward conversion. LPP Resources formed with Mr. Webber and Mr. Miller as partners, and it was not until later that the corporation was dissolved and the assets distributed. He noted that it appears to him that they were two completely different entities. Prior to 1980, the property was owned by the United States and managed as part of the U. S. National Forest. The patent for Claire Williamson only granted the right to mine pumice; there was no right to develop residential uses or for geothermal development. These rights are held by the United States government, and only limited rights were granted to the private sector. The only rights were for locatable mineral resources, not leasable resources such as geothermal, oil or gas. Locatable mineral resources are typically rock or sand. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 10 of 14 Pages Mr. Van Houten gave rebuttal testimony at this time. He said as far as the facts are concerned, there is no disagreement regarding the decision dates and the mining claim provides for mining rights. However, they feel that geothermal is also a mineral right, and does not concede that this would have not been possible at the time. No other testimony was offered, so Chair Daly closed the hearing. Commissioner Daly observed that he thinks the claimant has a good argument that bears consideration regarding the merger, but he doesn't think this is something the Board should address. It needs to be clarified at a higher level, possibly through the courts. LUKE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-060, a Measure 37 Claim (Johnson). Tom Anderson said that the claim is for property located on Horsell Road, near Alfalfa and just inside the County line at Austin Road. It is 31 acres zoned EFU with an Alfalfa subzone. The claimants wish to subdivide the property into three parcels of eight, eleven and twelve acres. The amount of damage claimed is $600,000. Leona and Gary Johnson acquired the property via land sale contract on August 14, 1972, and it was subsequently conveyed to them via warranty deed in 1977. Two lots were acquired originally but after one was sold, there was a dispute regarding ownership; a court decided that it belonged to the Johnsons. The claim covers all of the property including the disputed strip of land. In 1990 Gary's father, as part of a loan, held the deed on property as security, and it was transferred back after the loan was paid off. It is thought that in this instance it did not sever the ownership interest of the Johnsons. In 1996, via a quitclaim deed, Gary Johnson transferred his interest to Leona Johnson. She is the listed owner of the property individually on tax records. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 11 of 14 Pages The Order establishes an acquisition date of August 14, 1972 for Leona Johnson exclusively, based on tax records. Gary Johnson no longer has an ownership interest in the property; therefore Leona Johnson would have to apply for any future land use application to partition or subdivide the property. In 1972, PL-2 was in effect, and this subdivision likely would have been allowed. A letter of opposition was received from a neighbor, Kyra Walton. Mr. Pilliod said that the claimant did not furnish the County with a deed showing the current ownership history. After noticing that just Ms. Johnson's name is in the tax records, the report and Order were revised. Lisa Klemp, attorney for the claimant, said she has not seen the revised Order, but based on the report she concurs with the acquisition date information and agree that Mr. Johnson no longer has an ownership interest. No other testimony was offered, so the hearing was closed. BANEY: Move approval of the Order, as revised. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-061, a Measure 37 Claim (Coulter). Tom Anderson explained that the property has no assigned address, but is located in the Alfalfa area, abutting the intersection of Alfalfa Market Road as it becomes Willard Road, at Johnson Ranch Road. It is in the northeast corner of the intersection, near the old school property. It consists of 19 acres zoned EFU, Alfalfa subzone. The claimant wishes to subdivide for residential uses, and gave a range of $300,000 to $600,000 for damages. The property was acquired via warranty deed by Mr. Coulter on January 4, 1977, and he has owned it continuously since then. At that time the zoning was A-1 with a five-acre minimum lot size, so some subdivision may have been allowed. Mr. Anderson does not know the specifics of a possible land use application. A State waiver may also be required. No letters of opposition were received. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 12 of 14 Pages Mr. Pilliod stated that a letter from the claimant's attorney included an opinion of value as produced by Bill Jordan Company, Realtors, and is now part of the record. Lisa Klemp, attorney for the claimant, said that she concurs with the Order except for the acquisition date. The signatures are dated December 319 19765 even though the notary stamp indicates January 4, 1977. Mr. Pilliod pointed out that the later date is the one that is relevant. No other testimony was offered, so the hearing was closed. BANEY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board were Other Items. At this time, Chair Daly said he asked Mr. Anderson to present information on some of the septic systems being considered for south County. Barbara Rich provided a handout and explained the differences in the various systems. There are some new systems just learned about that were not included previously. All have been approved by the Department of Environmental Quality but some do not yet have a distribution in Oregon. She said that depending on where the property is located, the type of treatment could vary. It is not necessarily based on the groundwater level, but also the number of homes and the types of soil. She then gave an overview of how the systems work and the technology behind the various systems. The group then discussed briefly how the hearing should be conducted. The Commissioners asked that the presentation not be too lengthy or technical so that there would be adequate time to answer questions. Ms. Rich said that in the past some participants have been afraid to speak up as they have been treated poorly by others in the audience. Commissioner Baney stressed that efforts need to be made to keep people from being unruly or disrespectful to staff. It is okay to have differing opinions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 13 of 14 Pages Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 12:35 p.m. DATED this 13th Day of March 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Q440"A' Tammy aney, C missioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 14 of 14 Pages ennis R. Luke, Vice Chair ❑ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.oriz BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA - LAND USE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 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 HEARING (continued from February 13) and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-043, a Measure 37 Claim (Craig) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 3. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-056, a Measure 37 Claim (Marks) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 4. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-057, a Measure 37 Claim (Maguire) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 5. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-058, a Measure 37 Claim (Morrison) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 6. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-059, a Measure 37 Claim (LPP Resources) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 1 of 6 Pages 7. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-060, a Measure 37 Claim (Johnson) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 8. A HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-061, a Measure 37 Claim (Coulter) - Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community Development Department 9. OTHER ITEMS 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) Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Measure 37 Claims 6:00 p.m. Public Meeting regarding Groundwater Local Rule Issues, La Pine High School Auditorium Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Council Chambers 9:00 a.m. Juvenile Community Justice Department Update 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:00 p.m. Legislative Update Conference Call Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:00 a.m. Parole & Probation Department Update Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 2 of 6 Pages Monday, March 19, 2007 10:00 a.m. Measure 37 Hearings 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee 1:00 P.M. Meeting with Other Counties regarding Regional Jail Proposal 6:00 p.m. Public Meeting regarding Groundwater Local Rule Issues, La Pine High School Auditorium Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:00 a.m. Fair & Expo Center Update 11:00 a.m. Commission on Children & Families' Update Monday, March 26, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:00 p.m. Public Meeting regarding Groundwater Local Rule Issues, La Pine High School Auditorium Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:00 p.m. Legislative Update Conference Call Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 3 of 6 Pages Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:00 a.m. Budget Committee Interviews Monday, April 2, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Tuesday, April 3, 2007 1:00 P.M. Budget Committee Interviews Wednesday, April 4, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall 9:00 a.m. Meeting with Judge Fadeley, Justice Court, Sisters Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:00 p.m. Legislative Update Conference Call Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:00 noon Audit Committee Meeting Monday, April 16, 2007 10:00 a.m. Measure 37 Hearings 12:00 noon Regular Meeting with Department Heads Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 4 of 6 Pages 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:30 a.m. Bend Chamber of Commerce Breakfast Meeting - State of the County 10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, April 23, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Tuesday, April 24, 2007 11:00 a.m. Meeting with Black Butte Ranch County Service District Board Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:00 p.m. Legislative Update Conference Call Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:30 p.m. Sheriff Department Update Mondgy, April 30 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May 2, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 5 of 6 Pages Monday, May 7, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday May 9, 2007 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 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 Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 6 of 6 Pages