HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-12 Business Meeting Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Page 1 of 6
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
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013
_____________________________
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
__________________________
Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone.
Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Chris Doty, Road
Department; Peter Russell, Community Development; and seven other citizens.
Chair Unger opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
__________________________
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITIZEN INPUT
None were offered.
3. Before the Board was Continuation of a Public Hearing and Consideration
of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2013-020, an Update to the Deschutes
County Transportation System Development Charge Methodology .
Chair Unger reopened the continued hearing.
Chris Doty gave a brief overview of the item. In regard to the time limit
relating to abandonment of a specific land use, testimony was previously given
recommending a longer period of time (see attached memo for reference).
In regard to Tetherow specifically, some language was prepared to include if
the Board is supportive.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Page 2 of 6
He suggested that if relief is to be given, to do this on a percentage basis and
not through a specific amount or number of trips. Staff recommends that if this
is done, it should be at 50%. Tetherow representatives can speak to City of
Bend representatives on the same matter, as this provides a path for them. Not
all areas in Tetherow are affected the same.
One item not addressed was a specialized reduced rate for Goal 8 resorts. They
have gone to great lengths to try to encapsulate all residential under one
umbrella. Otherwise there would have to be deed restrictions affirming second
home status and other complications.
Commissioner DeBone asked for clarification of the 50% figure. Mr. Doty said
it would be a reduction of the normal fee for single family dwellings.
Tia Lewis, attorney for Arrowood, came before the Board. She realized staff
does not want to give full SDC relief but thanked them for their cooperation.
She asked that all fees being paid in duplicate to City and County be waived;
they are looking at all the fees and assessments that are being duplicated. The
language suggested is acceptable since it limits this to properties that are subject
to SDC’s from the City. This helps also to not to set precedence.
She thought that the .26 would be an appropriate rate for trips for second
homes. However, they will accept whatever SDC relief is offered by the Board.
Bruce White, also representing BRE entities at Tetherow. He said they are
striving for fairness and a reduction of .26 is preferred. He heard Mr. Doty’s
explanation in this regard and understands the reasoning.
Steve Hultburg said that all Goal 8 resorts need to be treated equally.
Paul Dewey for Central Oregon Landwatch stated he appreciates staff and the
work of the SDC committee. This is a complicated issue and was handled well.
Issues were brought up and it was an educational proces s for all. He is
disturbed with what is being done now since the committee did not have time to
deal with this scenario. This issue should have been raised in the committee
process, and feels it should be remanded back to the committee. This should
have been brought up earlier.
When something involves resorts, he does not think fairness is always the case.
Tetherow was required to work with the City and there was no County road t
(SDC at the time. They continue to pay the City for this. They are not lobbying t
for this change for all, but just for Tetherow which has been impacted by both (
agencIes.
Annexation at the time was not an option due to issues the City was facing, the
UGB and other situations. I
Neil Bryant for Tetherow LLC appreciates the suggested compromise and the I
.26 makes sense. This is a unique situation and he hopes a solution can be Ireached.
Commissioner DeB one said he supports the SDC and the work that has been
done. This is a unique situation. He backs reducing the whole package, to the
50% number. When it comes to SDC's, second homes, vacationers and others
still need transportation systems. The roads are well maintained here and
funding is necessary to keep them in good order. I
Commissioner Baney stated that a lot of work has gone into this effort, and she Iappreciates the changes that have been incorporated. She supports the 50%
I
Ilevel, and hopes they can leverage this with the City of Bend. The development
fulfilled the infrastructure requirements, but no discussions took place at the
time regarding SDC's. It would be impossible to replicate this particular
situation and it won't happen again. In reference to Goal 8, it is a specific issue I
to this development. f
I
Chair Unger noted that SDC's are important, as they help address growth and
maintaining the system in the future. He tries not to modify the methodology. I
~This helps keep the road system functional. They want the path going forward
to be clear. He believes they should pay some City SDC's as there are impacts
to the City streets. This can be packaged into the homeowner's loan.
They unfortunately haven't found common ground here. He supports the
methodology that they have in place. Some homes don't impact on a 1000/0
basis, but 50% does not make sense to him. He supports the 1000/0 level.
Mr. Doty said they can approve the original Resolution with the 50% number if
desired.
IMinutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, June 12,2013
Page 3 of6 f i,
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Page 4 of 6
Chair Unger stated they can continue the hearing; close and deliberate and
come to consensus; or send it back to the committee for a recommendation.
Commissioners Baney and DeBone indicated the hearing should be closed.
Chair Unger closed the hearing.
BANEY: Move approval of 50% level.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes no.
__________________________
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
BANEY: Move approval.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Consent Agenda Item
4. Board Signature of Order 2013-025, an Order for the Sale at Auction of Certain
Real Property Acquired by Deschutes County.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$12,172.01.
DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Page 5 of 6
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the
Amount of $3,755.41.
DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $803,978.72.
DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
8. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
The Board discussed the legislative conference call scheduled for the next
morning. It was noted that the cities do this on different days of the month than
those the County established. Discussion has occurred regarding combining
these meetings.
Commissioner Baney suggested that at this late date, anyone with concerns
regarding certain bills needs to reach out individually to the legislators.
Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
DATED this 16~Day of rp 2013 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
01&-~
Alan Unger, Chair
Ta ~
ATTEST:
Anthony DeBone, Commissioner rb~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting VVednesday , June12,2013
Page 6 of6
----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
AgendaItemofInterest ___________ Date 19 -1"2 ,(~
Name __~_t~"~I~~_L-~~__~__(_'~____________________________
Address
Phone#s
E-mail address .~ b i~ (;J c;t ~wO bi? , CD r ~\
--~~~~~---------~--~~-----------
~Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes D No
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REOUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item ofInterest Tr).~~ :>b?s
Name ~vuc.e.. bJ·~kk
Address tv. ~(l&8
~.~( OL,~1+e9'
Phone#s 5Yt-~~2--2.0ts-
E-mail address P~wltw e Y'"loo. to M
D InFavor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed
-
---------------------------------------
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REOUEST TO SPEAK
--;-/ /Agenda Item of Interest "/' 7'/t.-V7 C2 4/ Date --~~~---------------------
Ad~esS ____5_·_/6___·J?~'_~_""~~~_____________________________
Phone #s 511 -4 f'1 -? 7 D 7 ------~~----~~-------------------------
E-mail ad~ess ___---'-u.~a:::::_Y-I_-"_'--l.......;:....::...J2_-<!'v-_____________________
~ In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed
." Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes D No
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REOUEST TO SPEAK
Pmme#s~__________________________________________
E-mail address
o In Favor rzi NeutrallUndeclded~
'-
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
RlQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item ofInterest w (S -D"LiJ $:bc c< Date C? b21 1"3
Name lD i ~ '--~Md--4r'" .-~vJ
Address S-l' J k; \\ \J\ f.u)
~~\ ()"'L-9 770 /
,
Phone#s S'j 1-3&"L-433 I
E-mail address bR..~~~i>ljl£WJ~' <&~
D In Favor ~NeutrallUndecided D Opposed
/.pubmitting written doc~ents as part oftestimony? D Yes D No
/' I
./'
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest ___--.:S::!...:():::::....=C..t:...1------Date 1./1R./t'J
Name ____~Q~A~uLI~~~~~V~&~¥----------~C~Q~L~--------------
Address _______________________
Phone#s ________----------------------------
E-mail address __________________________
D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes D No
Bonnie Baker
From: Nunzie <nunzie@pacifier.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Board; Bonnie Baker
Cc: FRED MAURER; Carolyn Perry
Subject: Testimony for 10am public hearing today: Co Transportation SOC's
Testimony for your Public Hearing lOam 6/12/13 on Transportation SDC's
Please enter into the record:
Testimony for your Public Hearing lOam 6/12/13 on Transportation SDC's
Please enter into the record
Dear Commissioners:
I encourage you to not issue favoritism as relates to Transportation SDC's. Already your matrirx calculations
are watered down because the study regarding resort traffic is based on Not Goal 8 resorts. Your matrix does
not reflect the transportation numbers for instance from the Thornburgh Resort which are higher than the study
data for Black Butte and Eagle Crest I (not Goal 8 resorts). Additionally at Highway 20/Tumalo there is a huge
infrastructure need which is not included in your matrix cost: please add twenty million dollars (M$20) for this
improvement.
Additionally, your calculations do not include all ofthe public ROW's in the County because many of these
roadways the County does not maintain (Riverside Ave in Tumalo is but one example).
Also, your policy on Destination Resorts has been mostly exceptions and no rule which no wonder is cause for
your recently adopted CDD work plan to request monies toward monitoring resorts.
Tetherow Resort is in the County and should pay County transportation SDC's.
I encourage you to not decrease the transportation SDC. The County should be increasing this fee as road
building costs have increased from 2008 and the County currently has neither it's own transportation model or
nor it's independent transportation studies ... you are relying on developer's watered down studies -The
developers want to show least impact; not actual impact. The least impact means the less fees the developers
need to pay ... The County should have it's own independent data.
If you look at why so many roads have a chip seal topping, this is because you don't have the proper budget to
fund the longer lasting overiayment.
Additionally, there should be no grace time to pay SDC's when rezoning land. Please delete this 10 year gift.
Thank you
Nunzie Gould, one of your tax payers
19845 JW Brown Rd
Bend, OR 97701
541-420-3325
1
Road Department
Date:
To:
Through:
From:
RE:
61150 SE 27th St.• Bend. Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6581· FAX (541) 388-2719
MEMORANDUM
June 12. 2013
Board of County Commissioners
Tom Anderson, County Administrator
Chris Doty, Road Department Director
Resolution 2013-020 -Suggested language additions
At the initial public hearing for Resolution 2013-020 (June 5, 2013), the BOCC requested staff
explore language to address concerns raised by Andy High, (Central Oregon Builders
Association) relating to Section 4B(2) of Resolution 2013-020 and the proposed two-year period
whereby a land use is deemed to be "abandoned". Mr. High recommended a longer period prior
to declaration of abandonment in circumstances such as destruction by fire or instances where
the prior use has been removed or demolished to abate a public nuisance. The following
language (bold text), added to Subsection 2 of 4B, is recommended to address the above
concerns:
2) If the previous development or prior use of the property, which was not required to
pay an SOC at the time of its previous use or development, has been abandoned
for at least two consecutive years, as determined by the Community Development i I Department under the County Code, then no consideration of existing use shall
occur and a new SOC assessment shall apply. However, if such development
or use was discontinued due to fire, natural disaster or required demolition
on account of public health and safety, then the two-year time period will be1 extended to 10 consecutive years.
I
I
Should the BOCC consider SOC relief to Tetherow, the following provision (Subsection 1 to
Section 4A) could be added to Resolution 2013-020 (bold text):1
i Section 4. APPLICABILITY.
j
(A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby assessed and imposed
upon all new development for which a building permit or a development permit is
required and issued within all unincorporated areas of the County outside the cities
of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. From and after assessment, the
transportation system development charge shall run with the property, not with any
structure attached to the property. Development shall mean and include new
construction, alteration, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit.
Non-residential, farm-related buildings for growing and/or storing agricultural
I
l
1
products to be used on site, and that do not generate additional commercial traffic,
are exempt.
1) All development subject to payment of the City of Bend Transportation SOC
via the Water and Sewer Agreement between the City of Bend and Cascade
Highlands Limited Partnership (recorded agreement #2005-73584) shall pay
XX% of the Transportation SOC for the specific use.
If reduction is contemplated, staff recommends utilizing a percentile reduction of the County rate
in lieu of adopting a specific trip generation rate. Staff recommends a reduction of no less than
50%.
j
j
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROAD DEPARTMENT
SDC UPDATE, RESOLUTION 2013 -020
BOCC WORK SESSION: MAY 8, 2013
PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 5, 2013
Why the Update?:
New TSP New CIP (+ Revised Growth Projections) New System
Development Charge
Process Used?:
SDC Committee reviewed new project list, revised growth projections,
and prior methodology decisions to arrive at consensus*.
Work Products:
Resolution 2013 -020 (supplement to 2008 -059)
Exhibit A: Methodology Report
Exhibit A -1: CDD Growth Rate Projection (2010 to 2030)
Exhibit B: 2012 Transportation CIP List (per TSP)
Exhibit C: Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
Exhibit D: SDC Policy Issues Memorandum (February 12, 2013)
TRANSPORTATION SDC UPDATE
1. Achieve methodology consistency (resort vs non -resort or
primary vs secondary)
2. Evaluate “reimbursement” portion of SDC
3. Address home occupation SDC rates
4. Clarify transferability
5. Clarify abandonment of use
6. How to address “change of use”
7. Address ITE Trip Generation Manual updates
8. Other issues raised by the Committee
These issues have been addressed within the proposed SDC
methodology itself or clarified within the new SDC Resolution
2013 -020.
ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF SDC COMMITTEE
Transportation SDC* (per PM Peak Hour Trip) =
SDC METHODOLOGY
RES 2008 -059
*Improvement SDC portion only
Transportation SDC (per PM Peak Hour Trip) =
SDC METHODOLOGY
RES 2008 -059
= $3,549 (incl $45 admin cost recovery portion, 1.28% of SDC)
Note: Current SDC is $3,673 due to inflation adjustments 2009 to 2012
Note: SDC would automatically increase 4% to $3,820 on July 1, 2013, per ENR inflation index
New Data:
Census Data
Population Growth less than 1% for past 12
years
Permit Data
From 2.8% per year (2000 -2007)
To 0.6% per year (2008 -2012)
Planning estimate for 2010 to 2030:
1.0% annual growth rate in unincorporated
area.
REVISED GROWTH PROJECTION
Create a “blended” trip generation rate for ALL units in
Deschutes County as follows:
Per known residential data: Deschutes County contains 74%
Primary homes and 26% Secondary homes.
Using ITE Rates for both Single Family units (#210) and Recreational
units (#260) create a blended rate:
74 x 1.0 trips/unit + 26 x 0.26 trips/unit = 81 trips/ 100 units or 0.81
trips per unit.
Proposal: The trip generation rate of 0.81 PM peak hour
trips/dwelling unit would apply to all residential units,
regardless of whether or not they are located in a Destination
Resort.
SDC METHODOLOGY CONCEPT PROPOSAL
FOR RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION
# of Units # of PM Peak Hour Trips
(0.81 trips/unit)
Existing Residential Units 31,013 25,120
Projected 20-year growth
in Residential Units (at 1%
annual growth)
37,836 30,645
System Growth 6,823 5,525
Residential Growth’s % of
20-year value 18%
PROPOSED BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM USE AND
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM GROWTH CALCULATION
Note: Non -residential (commercial) trips have accounted for 5 to
10% of SDC collections since inception.
Factoring a 10% increase due to non -residential trips places the
estimate of 20 -year growth in the transportation system at 6,078
PM Peak Hour Trips.
Review Handout.
Projects obtained via
2012 TSP Update.
Projects in green are
carry -over from prior list.
Revised/Revisited Cost
Estimates.
Prioritized (H -M -L).
Includes new category for
State Segments (not just
intersections).
DISCUSS/REVIEW PROPOSED CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SDC ELIGIBLE COST ALLOCATIONS
Project Category Project Cost
% SDC
Eligible
Total $ SDC
Eligible Project Cost
% SDC
Eligible
Total $ SDC
Eligible
County Int Projects $5.0M 100% $5.0M $7.08M 100% $7.08M
System Management $0.2M 0% $0 $0.2M 0% $0
State Highway Segs not incl not incl not incl $125.10M 0% $0
State Highway Ints $175.0M 5.3%
(35.3% of 15%) $9.3M $115.55M 2.7%
(18% of 15%) $3.12M
County New Segs $20.1M 100% $20.1M $3.46M 100% $3.46M
County Mod Projects $50.2M 35.3% $17.7M $34.49M 18% $6.21M
Forest Hwy Projects $25.4M 0% $0 $15.4M 10% $1.54M
Bike/Ped Projects $0.6M 0% $0 $0.57M 0% $0
Bridge Projects $3.2M 35.3% $1.1M $3.44M 18% $0.62M
TOTAL Project Cost $279.5M $53.2M $305.3M $22.03M
Transportation SDC (per PM Peak Hour Trip) =
PROPOSED SDC (IMPROVEMENT)
= $3,672 (incl $47 admin cost recovery portion, 1.28% of SDC)
Per initial SDC committee recommendation and supporting
information in Resolution 2008 -059:
“Due to the fact that the existing County transportation system has
been funded by a combination of tax sources and other “general”
funds, the County should forgo charging a reimbursement fee as a
part of its initial transportation SDC. A reimbursement fee
methodology or formula should be included in the analysis and report
in order to allow the County to add a reimbursement fee when it later
develops a basis for such a fee”.
Methodology (per March 2008 SDC study):
Reimbursement SDC =
REIMBURSEMENT SDC CONSIDERATION
=Cost of assets funded by previously paid SDC improvement fees($)
Growth in system capacity demand (in peak hour trips)
Deschutes County has expended $525,000 in SDC revenue on
capital projects from FY 2008/09 to present.
If a Reimbursement SDC were considered at this time, it
would calculate as follows:
Reimbursement SDC = $525,000 / 6,078 PM peak hour trips
Reimbursement SDC = $86 per PM peak hour trip
REIMBURSEMENT SDC CONSIDERATION
Transportation SDC (per PM Peak Hour Trip) =
TOTAL PROPOSED SDC
(IMPROVEMENT + REIMBURSEMENT)
= $3,758 (per PM Peak Hour Trip)
Residential Unit = $3,758 x 0.81 = $3,044 = 20% decrease
Non-Residential = 1.5% decrease (actual charge varies)
Issue Outcome:
1 Achieve methodology consistency Blended rate solution
2 Evaluate “reimbursement” portion of SDC Recommend approval
3 Address home occupation SDC rates SDC Table (Exhibit C)
4 Clarify transferability Res 2013-020, Section 4A
5 Clarify abandonment of use Res 2013-020, Section 4B
(2 and 3)
6 How to address “change of use” Res 2013-020, Section 4B
(1)
7 Address ITE Trip Generation Manual updates Res 2013-020, Section 4C
(1)
8 SDC Committee: How to assess “events”?
Recommendation to
monitor and re-evaluate at
next update.
OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED
If passed, Resolution 2013 -020 becomes effective
immediately
Transition period: Applicants (yet to pay SDCs) pay lesser of
SDC via Resolution 2008 -059 or 2013 -020 if building permit
submitted prior to Resolution 2013 -020.
Legal action contesting adoption of the Resolution may not be filed
more than 60 days after adoption.
QUESTIONS ?
FINAL DISCUSSION
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 AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12,2013
Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's
discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up
card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and
clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak.
PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject ofa public
hearing will NOT be included in the official record ofthat hearing.
3. CONTINUATION of a Public Hearing and Consideration of Board Signature
of Resolution No. 2013-020, an Update to the Deschutes County Transportation
System Development Charge Methodology -Chris Doty, Road Department
Suggested Actions.' Continue hearing, receive public testimony, and move
approval o/Resolution No. 2013-020.
CONSENT AGENDA
4. Board Signature of Order 2013-025, an Order for the Sale at Auction of
Certain Real Property Acquired by Deschutes County.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 12,2013
Page 1 of5
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
5. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the 9-1-1 County Service District
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
6. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extension!4-H County Service District
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
7. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County
8. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues
relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS
192.660(2)( d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at J 300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated Jjyou have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 12,2013
Page 2 of5
Wednesday, June 12
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Thursday, June 13
7:30 a.m. Legislative Conference Call with Public Affairs Counsel
6:00p.m. Public Hearing on the Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal -Alfalfa Community
Center
Monday, June 17
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Thursday, June 20, 2013
8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council -Sisters City Hall
Friday, June 21
7:30 a.m. State of the County/Forecast Breakfast Bend Country Club
Monday, June 24
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, June 26
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Thursday, June 27
7:30 a.m. Legislative Conference Call with Public Affairs Counsel
Monday, July 1
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
[
i
I
fBoard of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 12,2013
Page 3 of5
Tuesday, July 2
3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting
Wednesday, July 3
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July 4
Most County offices will be closed to observe Independence Day
Wednesday, July 10
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 pm. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
Monday, July 15
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July 11
7:00a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council -Redmond Council Chambers
Monday, July 22
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, July 24
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July 25
6:00p.m. Joint Meeting of the Board of Commissioners and the Deschutes County Planning
Commission to Discuss Groundwater Protection Recommendations -Sunriver
Homeowners Aquatic and Recreation Center
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 12,2013
Page 4 of5 \
l
Monday, July 29
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, July 31
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 5
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, August 6
3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting
Wednesday, August 7
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s)
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues
relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS
192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items.
!
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 12,2013
Page 5 of5
i