Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-07 - Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET , BEND , OREGON , 97701 JANUARY 7, 2010 - 5:30 P .M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Keith Cyrus. Members present were Vice Chair Todd Turner, Ed Criss, Merle Irvine, Richard Klyce, Susan Quatre and Chris Brown. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; Kristen Maze, Associate Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. November 19 and December 2, 2009, minutes were approved with changes to December 2. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Nick mentioned that County Assistant Legal Counsel was present to follow up on the meeting comments in Redmond regarding constitution of a quorum. Laurie Craghead said that Mark Pilliod had requested she be here this evening and they had discussed her comments and agreed on them. The County is required to function in accordance with statewide planning goals, which also cover citizen involvement, and she discussed the requirements of this Goal and the Commissioners’ roles, public meetings laws and the process being open to the public. Oregon’s laws regarding public meetings require them to be open and transparent – more so than many other states. ORS 192.620 states that the public must be informed of deliberations, decisions and information upon which such decisions are made. Decisions must be arrived at openly. Note that individualized legal counsel cannot be provided for each Commissioner. All substantive provisions of public meetings law favor openness. Meetings must be open to the public unless an executive session is authorized. The public meetings manual offers suggestions as to when quorums are appropriate – such as for attending social gatherings - but meetings involving any kind of decision making must be noticed. ORS 630, subparagraph 2, indicates that a quorum of a governing body may not meet in private to deliberate on a decision on any matter. Laurie restated her example of three Commissioners discussing an issue, and one of the three then going to a fourth person and discussing the same issue. This would constitute a quorum which has not been 2 noticed and does not meet public meetings law. If the person who went to the fourth person goes back to the original three and tells them anything, that constitutes another quorum. The County cannot force the Commissioners to do anything, but if a decision was challenged due to a violation of public meetings law, a determination would have to be made as to whether the decision could be defended. Any quorum outside the public venue thus puts any decisions in jeopardy, and the County could not defend individual Commissioners. However, the County may have to defend a challenged decision. Commissioner Irvine asked what constitutes public notice, and Laurie said it would be an agenda published in the newspaper as well as posting on a display board (not just posting it on a board alone). Commissioner Irvine said he had noticed the language at the bottom of the BOCC agendas stating that a quorum of Planning Commissioners may be present. Commissioner Brown wanted to clarify whether a phone call to other Planning Commissioners about having a checklist done for a meeting is a quorum. Laurie said no. Similarly, if the Chair calls members to see if a quorum will be present for a meeting, this is acceptable; but pending decisions cannot be discussed. Commissioner Quatre asked if chatting after a meeting would be included. Laurie responded that anything they are dealing with as Commissioners would be included. Commissioner Quatre asked if they meet and at the noticed meeting, they discuss personal issues that have occurred with the Planning Division (i.e., the public does not have the same access to CDD that the Commissioners have) – if a Commissioner has an issue specifically regarding personal property and it is brought up at a meeting, is that a problem? Laurie said it may not be a problem, and it would be up to the Chair whether to discuss it. The Commissioners are allowed to have bias and prejudgment – just not conflicts of interest. Commissioner Quatre again indicated concern that the public does not have to same access to CDD. For instance, if any Commissioner has an ongoing issue with CDD and raises that issue at a meeting, it seems that the public does not have the same opportunity for a one-one-one with staff. Laurie asked if she meant, as a hypothetical, that one of the Commissioners was frustrated with some process – this may look bad but probably is not an issue unless it creates a conflict of interest. Staff should not be influenced because of a Commissioner’s status, which would create a conflict of interest. Commissioner Brown mentioned that when he started as a Planning Commissioner, he noticed that the level of communication needed to be at certain levels between CDD and the Commissioners, including an annual self-evaluation. Chair Cyrus felt that it would fall under public comments. Vice Chair Turner asked if the County is self insured, and Laurie said it is. Vice Chair Turner asked if the Board carries individual liability insurance and what the position of the County would be if one or more Commissioners were sued. Laurie said it depends on the individual case, but they would not be defended if a lawsuit related to an issue of violations of public meetings law or ethics. She was sued in Multnomah County and is familiar with this type of problem. A Commissioner may just need to step down, since the Commissioners’ decisions are County wide. Chair Cyrus added that they only make recommendations to the Board. Commissioner Klyce asked about presumed innocence and how that affects whether or not the Commissioners would be defended. Laurie said the County cannot defend against challenges of public meetings law, so a presumption of innocence does not affect that aspect. 3 Commissioner Klyce asked if some action in question took place as part of a Commissioner’s role, whether that would be the same. He would expect a certain level of support for actions taken in his role as a Commissioner, and there would need to be a presumption of innocence before a termination is made. If someone makes an accusation of a violation of public meetings law, he thought that facts would need to be made clear, and Laurie said that a Commissioner would not be defended for any violations of public meetings or ethics laws. Commissioner Klyce said he was trying to be clear on where his liability lies while serving as a Commissioner – an unpaid service. Laurie and Commissioner Klyce discussed the definition of a quorum according to County Code. Commissioner Brown asked if someone who recuses themselves could still be considered part of a majority. Laurie said no because they cannot take part in a discussion or decision – they may only come back if needed for a quorum or if needed to do business. If five Commissioners attend a meeting, then one is recused and there is a 2-2 vote, the recusing person cannot come back up to vote. Chair Cyrus asked about a situation in which five Commissioners might be present, where he was Chair and there was a tie vote after the Chair was recused – could he participate if needed to break a tie? Laurie said no. If there are four people (a quorum) and a 2-2 vote, then the motion would fail for lack of a majority. Vice Chair Turner wondered about having four people and one recuses himself, is there a quorum? Laurie said no - the recused person cannot participate but can come back to vote. Commissioner Criss asked about a quorum showing up for information gathering at an event, and Laurie said it would need to be published in advance. Commissioner Criss wondered about four Commissioners attending a sporting event to gather information about something related to the location. Laurie said there is a provision exempting onsite inspections, as long as the attending Commissioners don’t talk to each other following an inspection. She said that last year’s AG manual is also online. Nick mentioned a situation where something could potentially come before the Planning Commission, such as the February 4 DEQ meeting. Laurie said if the application is not yet before the Planning Commissioners, this would not be a problem. Commissioner Irvine asked if four of them go to that meeting, would that be all right. Laurie said the safest thing would be to notice it so that the public knows they will be attending. Commissioner Criss mentioned the DEQ meeting and asked if they should announce that the Commissioners may be present. Laurie said DEQ is not responsible for that, but we are. Commissioner Irvine asked if the notice has to come from the County, and Laurie said no, as long as notice is out there and reasonably accessible to the public. Commissioner Criss asked if he called Commissioner Klyce about something in Terrebonne, and then spoke to another Commissioner about that, and three weeks later someone else relayed information to someone, is that a problem/serial meeting? How can they get information if this isn’t possible? Laurie said it needs to be done in a public meeting – they can always bring up subjects not on the agenda. It is better not to give the appearance of impropriety. Commissioner Irvine and Laurie talked about a series of discussions over a three- or four-week period rather than one day. Laurie said if it is a matter even likely to come before the Commissioners, it is better not to discuss it but to bring it up in a public meeting and err on the public side. Chair Cyrus and Commissioner Brown discussed calling someone after something is in the paper or received via email. Commissioner Brown said he sometimes asks about what is in the public record – such as following up if he did not attend a public meeting. Laurie said even that could be considered impermissible, as the AG manual mentions the 4 need for anything that may become a decision to be open. Nick said that if something occurs in an area of interest to a Commissioner, they can always forward it to staff for distribution. Laurie said it is best for the Commissioners to send emails to staff and not to each other. III. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Commissioner Quatre nominated Commissioner Criss. Seconded by Vice Chair Turner. Commissioner Criss nominated Commissioner Brown, seconded by Vice Chair Turner. Commissioner Brown received four votes for Chair, and Commissioner Criss received three. Vice Chair Turner motioned that Commissioner Criss be nominated as Vice Chair, seconded by Commissioner Quatre and approved unanimously. Commissioner Quatre thanked Chair Cyrus for his service. IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE DISCUSSION : Schedule Going Forward - Long Range Planning Staff. Kristen Maze summarized the draft Community Plans and meetings in Tumalo, Terrebonne and Deschutes Junction. Matrices were distributed to each community and we are receiving input. Tumalo would like to have the Deschutes River as a focal point and also would like us to address some other issues such as transportation. Deschutes Junction is split between residences and business owners as to what they would like to see – business owners want to see more development, but we are awaiting the remaining matrices. Commissioner Irvine and Kristen discussed making the responses available to the Commissioners. Commissioner Turner asked about 19 th Street and if there was a common thread to the input received. Kristen said it was a topic of interest for several members and not positive. Chair Brown said that one ranch owner thought it would provide them easier access to 97. Commissioner Klyce asked about the next Terrebonne stakeholder meeting, which Kristen said would be scheduled in February. Anyone can be on the email list to receive notice and participate in the stakeholder meetings. Commissioner Klyce asked if these meetings will be noticed – Nick said that the community meetings have been noticed up to this point and are on parallel tracks. At this point, we have three very different outcomes. In Terrebonne, 90% of the people are on the same page and we can probably have their community plan completed ahead of the Comp Plan Update. In Tumalo, about 75% of the community is on the same page except for some boundary and other issues. Deschutes Junction will take longer because we have to decide whether to even draft a community plan or just goals and policies. They are split on whether to support development. Commissioner Klyce suggested that all of the meetings be noticed on the off-chance that a quorum is present, especially after the discussion with Laurie. Commissioner Klyce asked about something he read in the draft Comp Plan about supporting sewers in Terrebonne, and he was recently at a meeting where people did not support them. Kristen said the policy reads that we would support an initiation if people want it, but so far people seem concerned about the fact that it would increase density. The likelihood is fairly slim after an initial study of the district. It has not come up in community meetings except when we asked the question during voting. 5 Commissioner Quatre asked whether there should be a policy stating that the idea is supported – what if a few big developers come in and buy up the land? They may be more inclined towards sewers. Is having it in the Comp Plan more of a threat? Kristen said that the County would just support the initiation of a district. She mentioned that a small group wanted to incorporate and there was a question initially as to stakeholders, but that group has since become much less involved. Terri Payne gave a PowerPoint summary of the current status of the Comp Plan update project. The process started in 2006 with the decision to tune up the existing Plan and take it out of Code format. The Board decided in 2008 to rewrite the entire Plan. Meetings were held in mid-2008 regarding timelines and future discussions. A steering committee and public outreach schedule were created. There was a joint meeting with the Board in August 2008 to talk about the work plan, role of the Planning Commission, time frame and public involvement. Steering committee meetings and panels continued from January through July, 2009. The TSP is in a separate track and will be inserted into the Comp Plan at a future date. At the same time as the startup of the steering committee, 150 letters were sent to agencies, organizations, nonprofits., etc., inviting participation. We had listening sessions, meetings/presentations to communities/stakeholders. Staff wanted to maximize input, build foundations, meet Board timelines and create/revise a draft. The draft Plan was completed in September and released to the public on September 30, 2009, followed by a review process. There have been 9 Planning Commission meetings, 6 community plan meetings, 6 open houses, over 10 meetings with stakeholders and a booth staffed at the fall home and garden show. BOCC has extended the timeline for plan review with no specific deadline. A matrix has been distributed to allow voting on goals, policies and actions. We need to discuss where we go next, such as the goal for next steps of the project, the timeline, what approach should be used to review the content, how should the public be involved? Staff would like clear direction as to the Planning Commission’s goal for the Comp Plan review. We need a schedule to get to the public hearing stage. Staff resources only allow for two meetings a month as we go on. Should we devote one meeting a month to discussing the Plan? There will be other things on the agenda such as text amendments coming up. We could review the draft Plan by chapter using the matrix, review by issues (land, water, etc.). How should the public be involved? Should we hold a series of meetings on revising the draft Plan without public input until after a revised draft is prepared? We could also use Survey Monkey to receive public input. It would probably take about four days of an IT person’s time to get it posted. We also need to discuss format – one or two volumes, level of specificity, style. We have compiled six Commissioners’ matrices which are ready to hand out this evening. Nick added that we want to raise the questions tonight but can wait for answers. Chair Brown asked about the complexity of the matrix. Terri said the vote is fairly clear; the comments have been incorporated as either just additions or in a separate column if not directly applicable. Chair Brown asked for comments from each member. Commissioner Irvine said one idea of using the matrix is to see what items need further discussion, so he would like to review it sooner rather than later. One of the first decisions should be whether the action items are in a separate document. Vice Chair Criss said he would like to see the matrix – this is a very cumbersome document and not very comprehensible to the public. He has discussed it with other planners. Some things should have timelines. As he has looked at other Comp Plans, including the one for the 6 City of La Pine, they are much clearer and contain mostly policy documents except for a few action items. Some things are not straightforward. He feels a South County chapter should be included and that he was appointed to represent that area and fill a gap. The citizens are angry that they do not have a chapter, after being told how special they are because of the groundwater issues. Terri said they had talked about doing a community plan in South County, but they did not receive a lot of support from the public. Vice Chair Criss said he was hearing from the public that they do want a chapter. Commissioner Turner said he would like to see the matrices which may show common threads and issues that need to be worked on. There are 220 action items and 180 policies. He cannot support 25% of the action items, and the majority could be easily combined into their respective policy statements. We should decide on a format first. Commissioner Cyrus felt we should review the matrices and try to arrive at a consensus for a direction. It would be helpful to combine the matrix output of a rewrite, starting with only what is required by the State. Commissioner Klyce supported much of what Commissioner Turner and Commissioner Cyrus said. He would prefer a more philosophical point of view. He pulled out three action items as examples – some of which we do not need, such as enforcing County animal control regulations. He finds this type of thing throughout the draft. Also, many of the policies are very specific such as supporting the U.S. Forest service/whitewater rafting. Right now the State is in the process of taking control of all navigable waters in the State – Waldo Lake, for example. He would not like to see that type of detail. Chair Brown said he had reviewed Comp Plans for six other counties and does not like the size of ours. He would like to see the matrix results from the Commissioners and the public at the same time to find common threads. He thinks there will be significant changes – when he reads Lane County’s Comp Plan it is 70 pages. The document should give the people of Deschutes County a clear vision of what we are trying to do – with a broad scope that works for everybody. He has read that the Commissioners are responsible for presenting goals every year. That allows us to remove the action items from the Comp Plan to see if they should be done in the next year. Commissioner Quatre indicated that Terri will have her typed copy by Monday. She agrees that many policies need to be deleted. Last year a motion was passed about getting professional panels. Now that we have a context, we can put what we hear from experts into that context, and she would like to see panels on each of the subjects. We either need to lengthen the process or go to extra meetings which has been indicated as not possible. There is no Sisters Plan, no Redmond Plan, so why should we have a La Pine Plan – but it does seem like they need to be recognized for their efforts and it is a good idea. She is also troubled by the numbering. Chair Brown mentioned that the Board had opened up the calendar, even if it takes awhile. Commissioner Quatre requested that all of the matrices be posted at the same time. Nick asked if the matrices could be distributed on the 21 st or 28 th . Terri thought that early February would work to complete input from Susan and the matrices we have received from the public. Chair Brown asked Nick if they could receive samples from other counties – perhaps four or five examples of certain parts. Terri said she would also like to have a summary of the public input for the Commissioners. Commissioner Turner said he expects a lot of compromise and consensus, so we should take as much time as is 7 needed. He does not want to forward anything to the Board that the whole Planning Commission is not comfortable with. Peter Gutowsky asked the Commissioners to remember that once the group is ready for the first public hearing, there will be procedural notices, etc., and he just wanted to remind the Commissioners about that step. The Commissioners also need to decide how to receive public input. There are many agencies/organizations that will want to share their perspectives, and the public and stakeholders will need to know how to provide input. Commissioner Quatre said she was indicating the need for more informational panels with experts coming to talk. Peter said he meant more along the lines of how to inform the public as to when they can provide input, or even if this will be allowed before the public hearing, which he would not recommend. Commissioner Turner said that if the Commissioners decide to change the draft which is already available to the public, that process will be important. Chair Brown thought that the public and any panels should be present at the same meeting. Should we try to sequence a draft for them to discuss before they come to us, or after it is rewritten? Having the Commissioners make changes would speed up the process but may not be corroborated with what the public says later. Commissioner Irvine mentioned that we have already gone through a process of panels and public input, so we should look at the matrices and figure out a redraft/agreement on this action plan/policy, and then go back out to the public with suggested revisions. Chair Brown asked if he was hearing correctly that a revision for the public could be made by the Commissioners based on the 18 months of work already done, and Commissioner Irvine agreed that it sounded like the public matrices will take awhile to compile. He questions waiting for the public – perhaps we should receive the Commissioners’ summaries soon and the public’s at a future date. Commissioner Turner asked if the matrix review should be individually or as a group. Commissioner Irvine said he would like to see the summaries. Vice Chair Criss said we may find that a couple of chapters are 90% okay and will be easier to reach agreement on, and maybe start having the hearings on those chapters. Chair Brown said he had read in the Code that the Plan can be adopted chapter by chapter and would like to approach it that way. Some pieces of the Plan will be difficult, but some others will be more straightforward. Commissioner Cyrus felt that the majority of public criticism involved the volume of the document. We could tackle the tougher sections last. Nick also mentioned that the findings could not be eliminated – they are required by the State. Commissioner Turner said he had looked through Chapter 1, and there are still things he would not want to pass on without reviewing other chapters that may be affected. Nick said nothing would be scheduled before the Board before the entire Plan was complete. Peter said that we need to establish a baseline of goals and policies required by the State. The baseline is almost our existing Plan, which has been acknowledged by the State. Terri said we have provided that, and some policies in the draft Plan have been carried over from the existing Plan but should be eliminated. We have gotten different opinions from other jurisdictions, Legal, etc., about some things that may not need to be included. If there is no justification, though, we cannot take something out of the existing Plan. We did not have time to research every single policy when we wrote the draft Update, but we cannot take some things out unless we can justify the deletions. The intent of the draft was to receive input from the Commissioners/public/stakeholders. 8 Chair Brown asked for the definition of “justification,” as to why some things have to remain in. Terri said she is working on that with Legal Counsel. Commissioner Irvine asked if there was a list of policies which are questioned by staff. Terri said we were going to bring these up as we review the draft Plan. Chair Brown asked if the Board would be informed, for example, about something like the homestead clause that the Commissioners do not feel needs be there. Peter and Commissioner Turner discussed having a trail of issues for the public hearings. Nick added that the State will not provide comments until we issue the 45-day notice. Peter said that the public will want to know when best to engage the Commissioners. Commissioner Turner wondered whether having more panels would achieve anything at this point. The policies are statements from “10,000 feet” about water, natural hazards, etc. – broad brush statements. Chair Brown said he had some real issues with the water information, for example, and we need definitive clarification and information. Commissioner Quatre said sometimes there may not be one expert, which is why she mentioned having panels. Nick discussed timing and schedule, and also having subcommittees to work with a staff person and perhaps present information at future meetings. Vice Chair Criss said that the timeframe may be dramatically affected by the results of the matrices. Nick mentioned that there will be many competing demands on staff as we move forward. As an aside, on Friday, January 22 from 1:00-3:00, Richard Whitman will comment on the Bend UGB. Commissioner Turner said that perhaps we need to be more disciplined as to how much time we spend on each agenda item at meetings. Terri wanted to clarify that the matrix results from the Commissioners and the public should be put together as soon as possible. Commissioner Irvine and Chair Brown wanted the Commissioners’ input first. Commissioner Klyce asked when the matrix results for the Commissioners would be available – Terri said that if she got Commissioner Quatre’s input this Monday, perhaps by Thursday the 14 th . Nick mentioned that Peter is preparing a large memo to the Board regarding destination resorts, which will be completed next week. Kristen said she could help Terri with the matrices next week. Commissioner Klyce thought that the draft Plan tried to touch a lot of bases. His personal assessment of society in the near future is that we will no longer be able to please everyone. Resources are shrinking – it is not reasonable to promise too much. He is not doomsday oriented, but the staff cutbacks we are already seeing will be long lasting until revenues pick up again. He does not want to produce a document making too many demands on the County. Peter said we can provide websites for examples, instead of reams of paper. He cringes a little at hearing talk of more panels – we have had them for 18 months already. Maybe a few would be needed, but we have had a great amount of input. Public policy is the tool that takes what the studies say and decides how far to take them. The Commissioners represent diverse interests, and the opinion of one individual may not reflect the consensus. We have detailed minutes of the panels we’ve had. We are strapped right now with a reduced work week and maybe it would be good to set up individual meetings for a few Commissioners with experts. Chair Brown said he was more interested in transmittal of the actual chapters where we would use samples, rather than setting up websites. Nick mentioned upcoming DEQ meetings regarding water as an example. Peter said we are the first County in Oregon to prepare a 21 st century Comprehensive Plan, and although there are issues with the size 9 and formatting, the sample Comprehensive Plans that are being talked about are out of date by comparison. What he is hearing is that there is a philosophy here that maybe is not so in line with balancing community resources and property rights – what models do we use? Commissioner Klyce said he is not worried about what other plans say – he would like to see what is going on. He has more sympathy for staff than we may realize. It is hard to make everyone happy, but he has seen things over the years that he would like to see changed. Commissioner Irvine said that he does not see a need to go back through the process of having panels, etc. We should look at the matrix, suggest revisions and come up with a revised Plan for the public to comment on. Commissioner Cyrus mentioned the water study with both sides of the aisle quoting the same expert, and the idea was to get the expert in to answer questions. He could see a need for additional input on agriculture – maybe someone from the experimental station. Commissioner Irvine agreed that after looking at the matrix, specific sections needing more input could be looked at in more detail. Commissioner Quatre said that she is not comfortable with some areas such as ag. Nick asked what the consensus of the Commissioners was. Vice Chair Criss thought that the matrices should be looked at first and seconded Commissioner Klyce’s appreciation of staff’s limited resources. Terri thought it might be good to ask for public comments. There were none. V. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick said that the Board would be discussing event venues on January 20. Staff is preparing a memo summarizing what other counties are doing. Commissioner Klyce said that the Board had indicated they would be interested in hearing about the nuances of discussions about events. Should there be a liaison with the Board? He has been attending most of the meetings and could do this. Nick said someone could be appointed to reflect the Commissioners’ views. Chair Brown said he follows the BOCC agendas to make sure someone was there who had an issue in what was being discussed, and he would like to have the discretion of making sure someone attends who has an interest in the discussion, rather than one person. Commissioner Klyce asked whether it would constitute a quorum if four Planning Commissioners attend the UGB meetings. Peter said no because it is not on the Planning Commissioners’ agenda/decision - they would be attending as individual citizens. Nick said the Bend UGB is probably fine – but we may need to defer to legal counsel. Commissioner Klyce asked about the Commissioners showing up as private citizens and whether they could discuss the meeting as same. Laurie had said there was potential for some issues to come up before the Commissioners. Commissioner Irvine thought there was potential for a problem with the UGB and the Planning Commissioners’ attendance. Nick said we will take care of noticing all the DEQ meetings and perhaps the Bend UGB. Nick and Peter discussed the report for the UGB coming out tomorrow. Commissioner Cyrus asked if it was all right if they all showed up but sat separately. Peter said Commissioner Brown’s recommendation was probably good: one person of interest attending. There is sensitivity because the Commissioners are a public body. Chair Brown said it was probably best if no more than three attend a meeting. Commissioner Turner observed that this Commission has changed from being an advisory commission to becoming advocates of change with certain obvious agendas. It is really important that any attendance at other meetings takes place as individuals. On three 10 different occasions, he has read in the media comments from the Commissioners about the Commission’s opinion as a whole, and the Commission should speak as one voice. Commissioner Criss mentioned that the agenda for the February 4 DEQ meeting has been posted on the DEQ’s website, and no great detail will be discussed – just the process as to how to move forward. Peter mentioned that DEQ had provided a question and answer list. Commissioner Criss said it also involves Klamath County. Peter said that La Pine’s urban growth boundary proposal will come forward for a public hearing in the near future. We will just need to amend our Comprehensive Plan and maps, and he does not expect it to be contentious. Commissioner Turner asked if this would involve an urban area reserve, and Peter said no. Chair Brown asked about proposed changes in state guidelines for the destination resort issue. Nick talked about a letter received from Richard Whitman and DLCD’s requirements regarding the destination resort requirements. Chair Brown mentioned an upcoming meeting at the City Council chambers and thought that the room is not big enough. Nick said that the County taxes levied on destination resorts totaled over $35 million last year (handout provided) and summarized the distribution to various County agencies – including $18.3 to education districts. Commissioner Criss asked if any of the money goes to the park districts, and Peter said perhaps to Tetherow. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING – January 14, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701