Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome. I will now call to order the Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners Business Meeting for June 25, 2026. County Administrator Gary Schmidt, would you please call the roll for us?

Yes, thank you, Chair. First, our staff support today, County Council, Billy Williams, Clerk to the Board, Andrew Jiraki. Roll call. Commissioner West. Here. Commissioner Schrader. Here. Commissioner Helm.

Here.

Commissioner Savas. Present. Chair Roberts.

Here. Thank you, Gary. If able, would you please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance.

All right, well, first up is public communication. Testimony is limited to three minutes per person, and as always, I ask your comments to be courteous and respectful. As a reminder, you can also email comments to bcc at clackamas.us, and they'll be accepted as part of the public record. We'll take in-person testimony first, and our clerk, who does a fantastic job, would you help us moderate the in-person and virtual testimony, please?

Yes, Mr. Chair. This is a reminder that if you're attending this meeting in person and wish to comment during general public communication about any item that does not have its own specific public hearing on today's agenda, this is your opportunity to please fill out a blue card, place it in the box, and I will call on you in the order that is received. When I call your name, please come forward and introduce yourself. You have three minutes. As a reminder, if your topic relates to something that has its own specific public hearing on today's agenda, to comment on a specific item such as short-term rental ordinance or short-term rental fees please say that and we will hold your comments until the appropriate time to comment on that specific item. Thank you. First Mitchell Dio apologies that' s mispronunciation please come forward you will have three minutes.

Chair, members of the board, my name is Mitchell Doig. I'm an Oregon City resident and a nationally recognized expert in substance use disorder treatment. You've heard me here before. I'm here to talk about the same issue. Last month, I ran into Commissioner Savas at the Watershed Cafe, thanked him, and received a kind handshake when I thanked him for recognizing that the last time county staff presenting on this issue, he recognized that this was not a local issue and was an unnecessary bureaucracy we were throwing at this problem. During Tuesday's meeting, he further went and reversed course completely and even said that the people who would need these supports probably will die of an overdose before they die of a disease. He later said the day that we actually need these programs will be a dark day for Clackamas. I fear the dark day is already here if that's the stuff that is happening in this room. If our own elected officials reject science, suggest that healthcare promotes overdose, and treats risking communicable disease as the preferable alternative for those who do not experience a life-ending overdose. That comment also misses something. Clackamas residents who need these services are already driving to other communities to get them and come back. Addiction itself isn't communicable, HIV and Hepatitis C are, and pushing people out of the county for care raises that risk for everyone. In the same meeting, Commissioner West admitted improper disposal is a problem for many in Clackamas, not just people who use drugs. Then he argued it's worse when an addicted person does it. That's moralizing a health condition and hides what this ordinance does. An ordinance like this has one function. It creates a bottleneck. A taxpayer funded position that says yes or no or simply doesn't respond or defers it to a board this decisions where who spends its time on policy with no evidence behind it. Similar citing restrictions for other programs are already risking slowing down a caring place, which your staff hinted at on Tuesday as well. This board prides itself on not creating exactly what this kind of regulation does, yet is doing it anyway. Commissioner Savas asked in the first informational session if there would be legal risk to the county if they enacted an ordinance without a means of enforcement. The willingness to now explore it again without a funded position makes clear that the only thing that's changed from his past position is who's affected rather than the harm being to the county government, the harm is shifting to county residents themselves. The intent here seems more malicious like lawfare than a policy dispute. You've said so much as yourself before in session. This is about belief. This isn't about facts. The only commissioner who reached out to me at all in months of trying to engage this board told me he speaks this way specifically to upset normies. And nothing came of that conversation. I watched hours of board meetings, and as far as I can tell, I'm the only community member speaking about this issue, and I'm in opposition. Even your own staff said they have not received complaints necessitating this. So I ask, how can a community trust their government if they gamble with the health of community members they represent over a personal view rather than facts? How are we to trust a board where Commissioner Schroeder calls healthcare a sign of societal dysfunction while spending hours of staff time and tax dollars on a policy that amplifies that dysfunction rather than reversing it? SAVIS warned of a dark day coming. He pointed to the wrong one. It's today, and it's every day like it when this board chooses to build the bottleneck I've described instead of clearing the way. I'm asking you to do two things yet again. Please stop working on this ordinance and wasting taxpayer money, time, and risking litigation. My birthday is July 7th. I'll spend that time with you if I have to as well, which is when the next time this comes up for policy session. It also creates the same bottleneck, and so I ask you instead to do the thing I asked before, which is redirect settlement board funding to treatment and prevention and not this. I will submit a fuller account of this in written record. You were elected to serve the health of this county, not your own beliefs about who deserves care. Please act like it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Susan Schenk. Susan Schenk, please come forward and introduce yourself. You have three minutes.

Good morning, Chair Roberts, commissioners and staff. My name is Susan Schenk. I live in Wilsonville and I am representing the Clackamas County Arts Alliance as a board member. I'm also on the Wilsonville Arts, Culture and Heritage Commission and an officer in the Wilsonville Historical Society. For several years, the Arts Alliance, with our professional staff, have been acknowledged as the go-to organization for information about the local arts activities, funding opportunities, and representation with local, county, regional, and statewide initiatives. The county and the Arts Alliance's long history have been beneficial and supportive to all members living and visiting the area. I'm here today to make the case for reconsideration for full funding and support. The recent funding change will make it difficult for us to maintain the level of services that the Arts Alliance provides and will impact the organization significantly. Without this support, we will be looking at possible layoffs and drastically changing our ability to meet the needs of the arts and culture community in Clackamas County. Commissioners, as you know, you have been a great partner with the Arts Alliance since our inception, originally 1994, nearly 30 years. The Arts Alliance has been a strong partner with the county, providing services each time we are asked, with the recent example of coordinating and placing public art in the courthouse and two new libraries opened recently. The Arts Alliance has followed all reporting requirements, has met all deadlines, including providing comprehensive financial reports with each project. In compliance with our funding from the Office of Economic Development, the Arts Alliance focuses on supporting training and capacity-building work for businesses, organizations, and entrepreneurs who focus on the arts and culture. providing public art exhibitions, even in this very building, throughout the county, where the art is listed for sale in support of artists, supporting local artists and creative businesses to prevent closures, and advancing career opportunities and growing the arts and culture workforce. In addition, we serve as the liaison and the advocate for the county's arts and culture community, providing leadership, resources, and direction, and functioning as a convener for individual groups support okay so hearing the bell ringing me out here so every day we will we witness arts and culture bringing people together and strengthening our community bonds in creative spaces we find common ground and pride in our local identities and so we're asking to not hobnail our efforts by cutting our the budget significantly as it has been cut. Thank you. I'm speaking here for Diane who will be happy to answer any questions you have about the Arts Alliance.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Kristen Rowland. Kristen Rowland, please come forward. You'll have three minutes.

Hi, I'm Tristan Roland. I'm here to discuss the failure of measure 3-633, the five-year county share of public safety and local option levy. I'm not new to testifying before boards, but I'm new here. And I believe I shook Commissioner Roberts' hand at the Wilsonville Fred Meyer, and I'm happy that a Wilsonville resident, Commissioner West, is on the board. And I hope to meet some of you as well. Let me start by saying I have bipolar disorder. And I have seen some dark times in my past. And I would not be alive if it weren't for the brave deputies of the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office. In 2021, I experienced my first manic, first and only manic episode, and became very suicidal. I walked, at one point walked along I-5, contemplating jumping in front of a semi-truck. And had I not, I called the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office or helpline to talk to someone, and they sent deputies out there. I was 17 a sheriff's deputy walked up to me and held out his hand. Had he not held out his hand and had he not offered that gesture of kindness I would not have been pushed back into believing that I should continue living. I dropped out of high school and struggled, but was in intensive outpatient care, put on meds. But I will say I did enter PCC and graduated with highest honors, Phi Theta Kappa, and now I'm entering PSU, studying political science at the College of Urban and Public Affairs. But what I'm here to say is I'm pleading asking you that we do something to save and continue funding Clackamas County Sheriff's Office because I do not want and cannot bear the thought of kids like I was there were 17 15 16 committing suicide and I was I was one survivor and there were many who did not survive if you look at the statistics suicide rates are terribly high for teenagers. So please look at this issue please reach out to me if you want I will reach out to you guys and I will hope that we save our sheriff's department because this is an issue that is to me not negotiable. thank you. thank you.

I will call these next two together.

We've rehearsed this many times.

Ms. Hagen-Miller, go ahead, please.

Good morning, Chair Roberts, commissioners, and others.

my name is selma hagen-miller I reside in the unincorporated area of clackamas county known as oak grove last evening I attended the north clackamas parks and recreation district board meeting at concord school that district board is you took public comment from many members of the public both from residents of the city of milwaukee and residents of the next you had some informational charts put on display for all to see these charts contain some great information so thank you to the commissioners commissioner and staff person that put that information together next came your decision about where do we go next with the issues at hand it was during that discussion that I recognized the silos that currently exist. I retired from a position at the telephone company that was basically a problem solver one issue I was given was the length of time it took to resolve nighttime outages on special services lines resulting in the loss of thousands of dollars to the company during my investigation of the issue I discovered that the repair process was siloed by design the customer discovered an outage on a line reported who through a process determined if the outage was inside or outside on the office. The test desk man had to escalate the problem to his supervisor who then had to call the superintendent and equivalent level supervisor in another department to make someone make the repair. this often went up the siloed chain of command three or more levels in a department before it crossed to the department that actually fixed the problem meanwhile the customer was out of service how does this relate to the parks district issues you are struggling with last night you decided to turn the issue back to your appointed and CPR DDA see or district advisory committee. Which is all well and good. May I continue. yes i'll be short which is all well and good but they are not the only citizens committee involved in the problem the city of milwaukee also has an appointed parks advisory committee these two committees should be talking to each other about their mutual problem it is amazing when that kind of communication happens I know at the telephone company once the silo was done away with it was a money saver people with similar problems, but in different agencies departments talking to each other amazing now Let's talk about a real problem the issue of speed of e-bikes on the trolley trail Other governments are also starting to take this issue on. Thank you for listening.

Thank you Thank you

Thank you. I'm Grover Jeffrey Bornefeld, and I'm a resident of Jennings Lodge for the last 35 years. And I want to thank you all. One, I attended that same meeting, and I really did appreciate that you listen, as I find you often do. So I appreciate that. Keep up the good work. I love the relationship. We don't always agree, but that's not the point, that you listen and we can work it out. I greatly appreciate it. But I also, as a side note, I had the opportunity to attend the transportation system plan community or open house meeting a couple days ago. And it was very well done. And I really want to applaud that staff, et cetera. There was particularly one staff member Su Tu Pa, who did a great job. And because I was not in the right, I was in the Oregon City group, but I wasn't from there. Oops. So we got to cover a lot of ground and it was great. So, but what I'm really here to talk about is Siloam. And I have a background for about 40 years of working to engage more people. So that's why I want to, I'm gonna wander just a bit, but the issue around the... the Clackamas Engagement Framework, and now it's being called the Strategic Communication and Engagement Plans. I am a major advocate for that. I think we are totally under utilizing the resource that we have in our community with volunteer groups, et cetera. I, for 35 years, ran programs that were based almost exclusively on Volunteers that we trained, and though that training provided significant impact, particularly as we were working on with high risk teenagers, and to watch them turn around and become volunteers themselves was a great joy. But I want to talk about specifically some of the things about community involvement. I love our new library. I want to thank you all for that. I know that many of us worked on it for 10 years to get it to be there. Same with the community center. We wouldn't even had that property if a group of community members didn't do what they did. I want to make sure the community rooms in both of our one library, two branches are being able to be used by the community and we've hit nothing but while we're still thinking about it, we haven't figured it out yet. They were built specifically designed specifically for community members to be able to use. I just want to bring that to your attention. I'm sure it can get worked out, but it's not appropriate the way it's working currently. And I also want to talk about a specific issue. So I'm on the Parks Advisory Board and I'm on the Library Advisory Board. And I... This weekend is the Oak Grove Festival. It's been going on for years. And every year, my truck would help haul books over there and have book sales. Well, the library's not going this year, because I found out that in the new building, it was supposed to be a 19,000 square foot building. It's a 16,000 square foot building, round numbers. there's no room for the volunteer Friends of the Oak Rods Library to sort books. So they do not have books to go over and be sold for a bargain. It was always, there was lots, we always took back like less than a third of the books that we took over. People bought books. Well, that can't happen. Now, right next door, This is an opportunity to maximize the use of taxpayer resources. There's at least 20,000 square feet of unused space in the Concord Community Center. And that was originally gonna be the backroom stuff for the library. But right now, those two silos do not work. That's wasted space. Health and Human Services, another issue. They could go down there once a month, once a week, whatever, for different events.

Grover, could you kind of wrap it up? I will do that. I'm trying to give you some extra time here, give you another minute.

The reality is other places do that commonly. Otherwise, people have to take two buses to get up here to get services. So those are the opportunities that I'd like to bring to your attention. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you to you both. I next have a card from Gerald Murphy. Gerald Murphy. I see that it's blank. Mr. Murphy, do you plan on commenting during general public communication or on something specifically related to the two public hearings on short-term rentals? Please come forward then. Introduce yourself. You'll have three minutes.

Greetings, commissioners, chair, staff. Good to see you guys. I'm here briefly to speak about a general authorization permit that was approved by Clackamas County, still probably going through state lands, on a replacement of a West River crossing pipe in my neighborhood in Rhododendron, Timberline Rim. it will be the third river crossing that I' ve seen go in when they complete this project next year. Right now they' re looking to do a temporary repair by putting in a coffer dam and reinforcing the bank to try and get through the next winter. This is not an this is not a cheap process this is you know a probably a multi-million dollar by the time we're done with it that this event can happen again we have high water events on a more regular basis now i'm asking my clackamas county commissioners to please plan ahead for maybe an mbr system a membrane bioreactor system on the north side of the sandy river in that particular area without fall to a wetland perhaps to minimize the tmdl that would be required to report into the sandy river there's many options here we could look at I know it's an expensive feature but as long as we're going to keep developing in that area we need to find another solution something's telling us this is not the way to do this so please pay attention to how we're going to spend our future west money and thank you for your time thank you thank you so much thanks for coming

Thank you. This is a final call. If you're attending this meeting in person, have not yet spoken, and wish to speak during general public communication about any item that does not have its own public hearing on today's agenda, please fill out a blue card and deposit in the box found by the center doors. Seeing none, Mr. Chair, with your assent, I'll move to those attending virtually. If you're attending this meeting virtually, this is your opportunity to please raise your hand if you wish to comment during general public communication. Kelly Bartholomew, I see your hand. I'll mute you. Please introduce yourself. You'll have three minutes. If you are speaking, Ms. Bartholomew, we cannot hear you.

Oops. Okay. Can you hear me now?

We can hear you now. Please proceed.

Okay, perfect. Good morning, Chair Roberts, commissioners. My name is Kelly Bartholomew. I'm a resident of Save Stafford Road. And I'm here because I believe that this board is at risk of repeating the same mistakes that permanently changed the Northern Corridor of Stafford Road. You guys have lived through that transformation. You've seen the public response and you've seen the outrage. You've seen the removal of hundreds of mature trees, the significant widening of a rural scenic road, the condemnation of private property, the destruction of front yards and the disturbance of streams and slopes. So my question this morning is not what happened. My question this morning is what have we learned and why are we here again? The Northern corridor was supposed to be the lesson, not the blueprint. And now within months, this board is now being asked to approve not one roundabout, but two in the Southern corridor of the same road. Most of the increase in traffic on Stafford is a symptom of the congestion on I-205 and I-5. As the Stafford IDA recognized, we should be solving regional transportation problems rather than permanently reshaping protected farmland to accommodate interstate traffic. This is another simple $12 million transportation project intended to improve traffic flow. But at what point do a series of transportation improvements become something else entirely? So commissioners, have you driven through the wine country around Newburgh or Dundee or Yamhill? What makes that landscape charming and memorable? Is it giant paved roundabouts, widened roadways, urban bike paths and expansive pavement? Or is it the narrow rural roads that wind through vineyards, farmland, mature trees, and open fields? People are drawn to these areas because of their beauty, authenticity, and agricultural heritage, not because they resemble an urban transportation corridor. Stafford Road is more than a commuter route. It supports farms, wineries, Farmlandia Farm Loop, and it's the last remaining agricultural buffer that is separating the three cities. So let's not repeat the irreversible mistakes of the past. Several of you have expressed concerns about how the previous Stafford Road project unfolded. And if those concerns were genuine, item F2 in the consent agenda, which I wrote an email earlier this week to address, deserves more than a routine consent vote. It is not routine. It deserves thoughtful deliberation about the future we are choosing for Stafford. Because once rural character is replaced with pavement and roundabouts and widened roads and urban infrastructure, it can't be put back. So the decision before you is about more than a single intersection. It's about the legacy this board will leave for the last remaining triangle of rural landscape, separating three urban cities in Clackamas County. So please consider item F2 for further discussion to evaluate the wider impacts. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bartholomew. Next, Les Poole. Les Poole, I'll mute you. You'll have three minutes.

Hello, Les Poole. I live in Linn County, but was in Clackamas for over 30 years. The comments today reflect on my subjects, which are transportation and addressing some issues with the recovery center. I'll start with transportation real briefly. As the previous speaker mentioned, It's good to see that you're having meetings about the future of our transportation plan what it looks like I'm going to submit a written testimony, but a couple of brief points one is that I believe we're still failing to focus enough on our commercial needs on moving commercial traffic and on the distribution needs that drive our economy and And of course, no place is that more relevant than in the Sunrise Corridor. I certainly support that project, but it seems the design is being too focused on transit and satisfying Happy Valley's immediate needs at the cost of connectivity. As things grow in the Highway 212 area, We need to think beyond 172nd Street. And the lady that just spoke about Stafford hit a nail on the head. We need to get 205 improved some way, and I know that's something that the county doesn't control, but certainly our county roads and our neighborhoods are experiencing the impacts of congestion and the failure to address the I-205 bottleneck. So please continue to work on the big picture, and I look forward to staying active in that aspect. The other subject is, of course, the Recovery Center. I want to thank the county for having a recent meeting in the neighborhood. It was well attended. Some of the concerns are still unaddressed or need answers. Hopefully, Commissioner West, the liaison can take this to heart and all of you will. A couple of requests. One is we need to save a piece of that school. The Clackamas Elementary School had thousands of people pass through it. The memories are rich there. It's going to be torn down and we're going to have a large recovery campus there. There are aspects of the school, I don't know whether it's the front doors, but a piece of the building or some pieces need to be saved for sure. We hear that it's got all this asbestos, but as a contractor, I can assure you that the entire building is not under a threat of having no part that can be saved. If nothing else, let's find a way to use the play structure. Much could be said about it, but again, there are some questions that need answers. And I'll conclude by presenting a major concern from the neighbors. The demolition of the school and the traffic impacts and the construction impacts, especially related to parking and noise, are not well documented. And that's an area where I would once again request that we get more action. Thank you for your time as always. Thank you, Mr. Poole.

This is a final call. If you are attending this meeting virtually and have not yet spoken but wish to speak during general public communication, please raise your hand. Mr. Chair, I see no other members of the public, either physically or virtually present, wish to comment during general public communication today.

All right. I'll now close the public communication portion and turn to Gary. What do you have, Gary? Did you want to comment on anything you heard today or move on? Colleagues, any comments?

Yeah.

Go ahead, Commissioner Rose.

Mitchell, thank you for coming today.

We had, I think, a good, robust exchange on the phone after the last time we spoke about this. Here's what I've taken away from our conversation, and with many that are advocating for what you're advocating for, which I do not begrudge at all, is in this space, we both want to help a lot of people. And we both have a track record of wanting to do that. And in this policy instance, we may not totally agree, and have a different outlook or different responsibilities in the community in which we serve. And I do want to thank you to continue to voice your concerns. When this comes back up, I encourage you to still come and share your thoughts. I value them. You know what the hell you're talking about. And so thank you for coming today. It's not easy to come and talk before a board. We don't totally agree, but I just want to take a minute to thank you, and I do value your voice in the conversation. And thank you for having a long phone conversation with me that day. I know... Voices got a little raised at times because of passion, not because of anger. And we exchanged some things and we were candid with one another. And I promise to continue to have candid dialogue with you as we try to serve this community that we deeply care about and we both have a long history of doing.

I will say that...

trying to strike the balance with SEPs in the community. That's exchange, syringe exchange programs. Forgive me for using an acronym. And there is evidence that shows that, and there's peer reviewed evidence that shows that specifically the Pacman study that There are some initial potential benefits with SCPs, but when they're used in a way that's not completely wrapped around a recovery services and it's, it can, within the umbrella of harm reduction, especially with the fentanyl outbreak, it can impact mortality rates. And I know that all of the tools in our toolbox aren't perfect, but I think that that is something that we have to consider while also consider the overall benefit of the community with children going to school and creating safe barriers around places that children tend to congregate. What is that balance for the overall public safety? One, the services that individuals need often for medication assisted treatment. And are those services done in a way that actually wraps somebody around the essential recovery services that allows them to go further down and to be restored and healed in their substance use disorder? Or are we managing decline slowly? Oregon's still... has a significantly higher mortality overdose rate than the rest of the nation. Now, we've gotten better, but we're still a lot higher, and our baseline is still too high. And are we just managing people where they're at, or are we being really radical in our purpose of bringing recovery treatment and services and a whole care continuum that just doesn't manage someone's syringe usage, but also manages their ability to be clean and sober and recovered, and that's the goal and that that's possible. I think that we as a state have often done quick interventions with harm reduction, but what the community as a whole has seen is we're doing this still lagging treatment compared to the rest of the nation. We still haven't appropriately developed and built out care continuums, and then we still continue to do things that feel like a Band-Aid effect but don't often get people through recovery. And so I want people through recovery. I want people as clean and sober and stable as possible. And I also want children to feel like that they can walk to school without having to dodge biohazards. And I think that that is the public policy struggle here. That's the tension between a heart to help people get the care that they morally need and deserve, along with serving the rest of the community that has seen a massive impact. Portland metro area, because of the fentanyl crisis and since after COVID does not look the same. I don't recognize the city that I grew up in that my previous generations of my family helped build. I'm saddened by how hollowed out and how in the human despair that I can walk down the street and see. We were just at the recovery campus doing that meeting that Les Poole was just speaking to the board about. We're sitting in a small little community church and right across the street are homeless individuals and their and the RVs and their tents and one is laying on the street across the street business owners are talking about the impacts to their businesses and And that community, I hope, will become better because the campus will be built there and we're doing better at getting people those services. But people see that every day that have to pay for all this and have to live in this community. They see that every day. They see their neighbors not getting care. They see these interventions and focusing sometimes too much on harm reduction and not care continuums, continuing to like... struggle in front of them and so now there's a lack of public trust now all the funding sources that we're doing to intervene are at risk because there's no balance in our public policy and people don't trust us anymore so that's what this policy is trying to do is not wait for it to become a bigger problem or a massive problem in Clackamas County but it's trying to be proactive do good local government the two services that we do have do not, aren't even impacted by this policy but it creates those safe buffer zones for kids. I think that that's a fair balance in Clackamas County. We're also the county that has the best outcomes in the region because our model is drastically different and the policies that we've implemented and how we've done it are different than the rest of the region. We've done bold things in the last three and a half years and we've been successful. So I would love, Mitchell, to continue to have the conversation about the issue of . You may disagree with half the things I just said. They probably won't let you have it. We can talk offline because public comment's over, and I would love to. And you can always come back at another meeting and testify. But I just want to say, like, the struggle to get to that policy is tough, but I bet you, you may not agree with what the board comes up with, but Think we can find common ground overall and I you're smart man like and I know you deeply care about this so This is a tough. It's tough for everybody to have to be dealing with this in Oregon the way we've dealt with it And there's a moral UNCTION AND URGENCY BEHIND US TO DO BETTER. AND WE CAN HAVE OUR PRINCIPLES AND HAVE SAFE, CLEAN, VIBRANT COMMUNITIES AND HELP THIS POPULATION AT THE SAME TIME. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THAT'S KIND OF MAYBE THE REASON WHY WE'RE PICKING THIS UP AND THE REASON WHY I AM SPEARHEADING THIS ORDINANCE MOVING FORWARD. I don't think my colleagues were totally wrong, and there is evidence to support some of their comments that they made the other day. Now, they may not have said it in a way that made everybody comfortable, but if you are honest about it, it's not totally wrong. And as we struggle with this over weeks and months of policies that we're going to pass, We do this publicly so you can see how we come to the decisions we come to. And so I appreciate my colleagues having this very difficult public discussion with the community. And I'll leave it at that, Chair. But I just wanted to thank Mr. Mitchell for coming. Mitchell, thank you so much. And then also maybe give more clarity of perspective why we're pursuing it. Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Simms.

It strikes me this morning, I really appreciate the range of issues that have been brought to us today and been discussed. This morning I received a phone call from a friend of mine who got elected in 2010, the same November that I did, from another county on Eastern Oregon. And we were kind of reminiscing about how how much we've learned really in the broad perspective and realizing that you look at an issue and it's about this big and then you learn more, public comment, you dig, you dig and it becomes broader and broader and it kind of opens your eyes and realize that we're constantly learning and we don't see everything. There's still things that we're blind to that we're not really aware of. But a common denominator in a lot of these issues today is really money or what we can do with our revenue. And we're in a situation where costs are increasing faster than we are seeing revenue to replace it. And that's creating pressures everywhere. Whether it was the e-bike discussion we had on Tuesday or whether it was the issue on sharps, it's both economic in a certain degree. But one thing I didn't say that I forgot to say, I wrote it down, but I didn't say it, and that is that, and I appreciate Chair Roberts mentioning the example of, you know, Sure, CCSO might pull someone over for expired tags, right? And we're not out there with the mindset that we're going to enforce it. We're not hiring a specific FTE. That's all they're going to do is look for expired tags. No. We can manage it. It's on the books. It is an ordinance. And some things like code enforcement, they're complaint-driven, right? Are we out there policing it? No. Are we out there looking for it? No. But this e-bike... conversation, whether it's code enforcement or whether, and probably more law enforcement, I read an article, I encourage anyone to look in the Pamplin Media article, I think it was posted in West Linn Tidings about the e-bike thing and a survey that West Linn's done, and conversations we had, because when we have these work sessions, people watch and listen, and then we get feedback through all the different channels. But Um, you know, I think we have to learn that we've said this for a long, long time. We have to learn how to do more with less. And I think the needs as our population is growing with that, we need to do more and more things are coming at us all the time and it's complex. Um, and you know, whether it's issue on sharps or whatnot, there are a lot of moving pieces and our, our job I think is to try to figure out how to protect people as best we can with limited resources and not just one particular issue, group of people, but also the people that are victimized, whether they're hit or struck by an e-bike or they pick up a sharp and they're stabbed and they maybe are exposed to a disease of some sort. I think that is the challenge, is the full range. It's the people that are using the e-bikes, It's the people that are using the sharps. It's the people that are maybe coming across and are victims of that. So it's that wide range. So just a comment is that it's a tough job. And it's the toughest times in my 15 years because of the economics that we're facing today. And we're doing the best we can. And I appreciate the robust discussion and dialogue we're having on all these issues. And we'll do the best we can. Sure, that's all I have.

Thank you. I had a quick comment. Tristan Rowland, correct? I just want to thank you very much for coming today and sharing. I know it's not easy, probably, sharing your personal story. You are inspiring to people that are struggling. You're clearly doing very well today, and we're very excited about that. I think the irony of you coming today, I just have to kind of point this out, is June is actually Men's Mental Health Awareness Month. And today is National Handshake Day. So I think the irony of those two things, you know, you coming today and kind of having the courage to tell your story, I want to say thank you and I hope you leave your number and I can follow up with you. We need more people like you telling your heartfelt story because it is truly inspiring to other people that are struggling. And our goal is to reduce youth suicide and suicide as a And I just want to extend my personal thanks for coming today. So is there any other comments? Then we'll move on and I'll turn to Gary.

Thank you. Next you have two public hearings. The first is a second reading and approval of amendments to Clackamas County Code Chapter 8.10, short-term rentals and declaring an emergency. Increased fees to generate approximately $558,100 of revenue to support short-term rental code enforcement is part of this package. There are no county general funds involved. Jeff Munns, Assistant County Counsel, will present. Go ahead, please.

Yes, thank you. Commissioner, Mr. Chair, short-term rentals, obviously a second reading of this amendment to Chapter 8.10 of the county code. The highlights of the changes proposed at this time are the inclusion of a land-use compatibility statement for those individuals registering a short-term rental, as well as a renewal requirement that these registrations will need to be renewed every other year. I'll note that in the amendment... The code still talks about an application fee, although we don't charge an application fee at this time. That's not being proposed, but it is in the language. Just wanted to clarify that. Also, as part of these amendments, we're removing the fee from the code and instead moving that into Appendix A, where the other fees for all county fees are included. And that will be part of the second public hearing for the resolution to adopt the new fee, which is increased to 1.5%, to generate the funds to stand up this program to do the enforcement for the short-term rental violations.

With that that's the summary of the changes to chapter eight point one zero and I'm happy to answer any questions All right colleagues any questions Seeing none I'll open the public hearing on this item So I'll ask clerk to help us moderate in person and virtual comments on that Thank You mr.

Chair this is a reminder that if you're attending this meeting in person wish to comment on this specific item to please fill out a blue cart and deposit in the box that can be found by the center doors First, Peter Himes. Peter Himes, I have a card for you. Please come forward and introduce yourself. You'll have three minutes.

Good morning.

First of all, my name's Peter Himes, and I am a current board member of the Hoodland CPO, past president of the Mounted Livability Coalition. We've been working on this for quite some time. Commissioner saw this in our member meetings back in 2018, working on this, so first of all, I wanna thank you all for the effort that's been put into this for us. Enforcement, probably my biggest thing from the last two-year pilot program. We had the regulations in place, but not much enforcement. So this is a big key to our issues. Two FTEs is a start. I would suggest maybe community involvement can help enlist the CPO, those of us that are interested in it, to help your code enforcement officer to police what's going on up there. I think I've heard some numbers of 300 registered STRs, but an estimated 1,300. in the area. So that's a lot of revenue that's being lost up there for noncompliance. This is an evolving program. I heard Chair Roberts end this hearing last time talking about this isn't done and over with. This is going to have to evolve as we go on. So again, if you can enlist the Hoodland CPO, we'd like to be actively involved with the input on that. fee structure, I heard some discussion about flat fee versus the percentage. And I think the most equitable thing for the large and the small operators is that fee because the large operators that generate a lot of income pay more money. And the people that are mom-pop type operations that rent to friends and family that don't pay a smaller fee instead of a $800 fee just flat across the board. Last thing I'd like to say is these are commercial lodging properties situated in residential neighborhoods. That requires enforceable regulation to keep things under control. So please adopt 8.10. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Pat Erdenberger. Pat Erdenberger, please come forward, introduce yourself, you'll have three minutes.

I'm Pat Erdenberger, I'm the chair, but only for a few more weeks of the Hoodland CPO. I'll be on the board though, and I'll be watching. I wanna thank county administrator, two members of council who worked on this, all the commissioners and chair. The chair gave an emphasis to this he commented very clearly, they want us to do something. And when he said that, All the trust came back, and we realized that something would be done. Not everything. We're not looking for that. We're looking for simple recognition that businesses are popping up in our neighborhoods. They're inviting total strangers to bring their lives, their dogs, their boyfriends, their beer cans to our neighborhoods. without any supervision. And if we can recognize that under controls, there won't be any problems in the future. It will quiet down and will be the odd new case that we're dealing with. And I think I'd like to remind people that the code enforcement office 25 years ago had about nine people And it doesn't have that many now. And the population's doubled. So keep that in mind. And again, I thank Mr. Munn, Gary, and others for all the work you did on this.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, Ian McCluskey. Ian McCluskey, please come forward. You'll have three minutes.

I need my cheat sheet here. Good morning, commissioners. Chair, thank you for the wonderful privilege of being able to offer public testimony on something that is near and dear and personal to my heart. I testified at the last session On the last session on this topic we heard from a mom nurse with acreage and sandy Who wants to retire and to do so host groups on her property? We heard from the multi-million dollar Collins Lake condo complex, which was purpose-built in government camp for vacationing And we and we heard from myself a multi-generational restore of historic cabins up on Mount Hood and We all spoke with concerns for this policy adaptation and the concerns really were underscored an important fact that these properties that I mentioned are so vastly different and yet under this policy we're all treated the same. And this reveals a need that's not in the current regulations as they're currently proposed, which is to distinguish and differentiate the property categories and specific uses. Large scale, small scale, corporate, family, locally owned and operated versus out of state investors. These are the distinctions that actually matter and the policy should reflect this. The specific solutions are needed for sure. In the case of the densely packed neighborhoods of the Mount Hood Corridor, we should reduce the cap on capacity from 15 to in half of that. We should put it on a family scale, not on a party scale. This will directly correlate to the issues of noise, parking, trash, and unruly behavior. For the existing properties that have been following the rules all along, have the permits be perpetual and not need to be renewed every other year. at least for properties like the historic cabins and the farms that are really working hard to pass down to the next generation. The two year, every other year renewal, unless that was somehow automatic and guaranteed, would be a burden and a stress to those families and those businesses. So this could be one simple change that could be struck from the new proposal without gutting the law enforcement part of that proposal. With the collective more fees, I understand that this would raise about half a million dollars. And I propose that instead of creating a program of red tape, we just directly put it into the law enforcement side. Commissioner Zavas, you made an interesting phrase, law enforcement versus code enforcement. And as a property owner up there, I would want law enforcement, not code enforcement. If someone's partying in my place, I want an officer, a trained officer to show up rather than a letter belated from the county. So these all underscore a need for some slight revision to an otherwise great effort to do more up on in our community for protection and public safety. Thank you for considering this. I hope most of this goes through, but please don't pass it through without some subtle revision. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Gerald Murphy. Gerald Murphy, please come forward. And this is a final reminder, if you wish to speak on this specific item and have not yet done so, please fill out a blue card and devise the box found by the center doors. Mr. Murphy, go ahead, please.

Commissioners, chair, staff, thank you again. Thank you for completing this project. I started working on this back in 2019 as a planning commissioner and as a resident of the Hoodland area. I'm vice chair of the Clackamas County Planning Commission. Thank you for the recent appointment. I'm a member of the Hoodland CPO. I've assisted in the Many, many, I'm a community volunteer, just put it this way. I'm very busy, but I would like to thank you very much for this effort that my community has put in to recognize the need for this and to leave the door open so we can adjust this. Not against short-term rentals, but I'm against short-term rentals taking over neighborhoods, running without regulations. This brings safety to the neighborhood and to the visitors of Clackamas County. Thank you very much. Take care.

Thank you. Seeing no more in-person comments with your assent, Mr. Chair, I'll turn to those attending virtually. If you're attending virtually and wish to comment on this specific item, this is your opportunity to please raise your hand. John Schmidt. John Schmidt, I see your hand. I'll mute you. Please introduce yourself. You'll have three minutes.

All right, thank you very much. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please proceed, Mr. Schmidt.

Okay, so again, my name is John Schmidt. I've successfully operated an Airbnb at Collins Lake Resort for eight years now, having experienced none of the issues that the ordinance purports to address. The county's justification for this ordinance is noise, parking, garbage, and enforcement problems arising from neighborhood vacation rentals. Collins Lake was approved as a resort, has on-site management, security, parking controls, and centralized waste service. Before imposing the same fees and regulatory burden, the county should identify what evidence shows that Collins Lake is creating the enforcement costs this ordinance is designed to address. Collins Lake is a purpose-built resort condominium. It is a distinct land use category that should be treated differently from residential short-term rentals because the factual basis for the regulation is different. The ordinance involves a declaration of an emergency in order to protect the public. I can assure you there's no emergency at Collins Lake. It's very well managed and there's nothing that would necessitate any kind of emergency regulations. I think it's Kind of absurd that each of the many short-term rentals at Collins Lake would be forced to go through a land use compatibility process, given that they're operating consistent with the original entitlements and purpose of the resort, which envision transient lodging. I can see how this could be necessary for the neighborhoods down in Welch's and so forth, but these are just simply not issues for Collins Lake Resort, and it seems very cynical on the part of the county to ensnare Collins Lake Resort In all this, which I assume is just being done simply to make the math work for the overall program, even though I imagine that the county staff does not expect Collins Lake Resort to lead to complaints or work for the new staff that the county plans to hire. I would propose a new category or exemption and maybe call it managed resort development. Eligibility would be established resort development where transient lodging was anticipated in the original entitlements and permitting, professional onsite management, centralized trash service, private parking management, HOA authority to enforce guest behavior, documented transient lodging use predating the ordinance. So I think some kind of exemption along those lines should be done. At a minimum, there should be an exemption for the land use compatibility process, as I stated before, that everything's obviously compatible with land use when we're operating transient lodging operations in a place that was entitled for that purpose. Or and or substantially reduced registration fees to reflect the likely actual costs They'll be incurred by activity at Collins Lake resort because it's simply going to be handled by on-site management The county staff is not going to be getting calls from people at Collins Lake resort.

Thank you very much Thank you, this is a final call if you're attending this meeting virtually and I'm not yet spoken wish to speak for this specific item to please raise your hand Richard Carlson. Richard Carlson, I see your hand. I'll mute you. Please introduce yourself. You'll have three minutes. Mr. Carlson, if you're currently speaking, we cannot hear you. Okay, let me try that. Is that better? We can hear you now. Please proceed, Mr. Carlson.

Okay, thank you very much. Again, my name is Richard Carlson and I'm a resident of Welch's and chairman of the Rippling River Association, which consists of 150 homeowners. I would simply ask you, and I very much appreciate the work that's been done. I think there's a lot of improvements in what you're considering. I'd ask you to reconsider the idea, the definition of a sleeping area, which refers to being designed and intended for sleeping, but it doesn't say when that occurs. Is it when the house is built, or when somebody buys it, can they simply remodel and have more sleeping areas? I'd also ask you to reconsider the idea of the number of occupants. Three bedrooms would house 10 people, under the present proposal, four bedrooms for 12, five bedrooms for 14 in a residential neighborhood. That's a lot of people. Imagine that number of people moving in next door to you on a weekend or weekly basis. I'd also ask that you consider the idea of some type of mandatory revocation after a certain number of violations, whether it's three strikes and you're out. I guess you could consider that, but I'd ask you to consider some type of mandatory revocation. Parking, the parking elements are really problematic because one parking space, off street parking space per bedroom, You know, when you got 10 people in a three-bedroom house, 12 in a four-bedroom house, you're going to have a lot of street parking. Finally, the idea of garbage, I'd ask you to consider the placement. You know, up here on the mountain, if you put your garbage out three days before pickup, you know a bear is going to get into it. And hopefully there would be some requirement that the garbage be picked up on a reasonable time so it's not sitting out in front of a house for several days. So those are the requests that I would simply ask that you consider as you consider these STRs in residential neighborhoods. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Carlson. This is a final call. If you're attending this meeting virtually and wish to comment on this specific item and have not yet had the chance to do so, please raise your hand. Mr. Chair, I see no other members of the public, either physically or virtually present, wish to comment on this specific item today.

Thank you, Andrew. I'll now close the public hearing and check with my commissioners if you have any comments or questions.

I do, Chair.

Go ahead, Commissioner Helm.

I want to find out, based on testimony, the last couple of sessions we've had on this. So, Chair, you and Commissioner Savas have been on the committee. So are you looking at... property categories, because I would agree that Collins Lake should be excluded from this because they are part of an HOA. And I do agree that these should be categorized. I think they are not all the same, just like the percentage for a fee addresses the size of the rental. So to make these all the same category, I'm just, are you working on that? Curious. And If so, where are you at? And I know that this is the first step of several. It's not a one and done kind of thing. But I just kind of want to know where we're at with that.

Go ahead, Commissioner. That's actually part of my comments I wanted to make, is that we're taking steps, right? And actually, I think this is really the second step. This conversation started in 2018, and I think the learned lesson from 2018 and 2019, and I think our staff that were working on this remember those nine famous meetings where... We spent a lot of time. We were tackling so much, and we went nowhere in that period of time, 2018 to 2019. And we resurrected it by taking a first step. And I think there's a saying, if you want to eat an elephant, it's one bite at a time. And we are doing a little bit, so I think that is on the horizon as well as I think there's a relationship between three strikes and a cap, right? So I think those are things we want to tackle, but I'm looking at Gary, my understanding of the task of the the committee that we worked on that was just to get us here and Give us some time to see how it happens and then we will have other meetings But there have been no other meetings since we have discussed this unless we want to work on the next phase of that I I do my other comments that I want to make were along the lines of the of the fee versus on a per rental basis versus a flat fee for people just operating. And we heard that in 2018, that, my gosh, how do you make that proportional? If someone is renting their home or their cabin for two or three times a year versus someone who's doing it several times a month, I mean, and they pay the same fee, is that fair? So there's a lot of fairness issues. I think that are they're valid and what I do and my concern about the flat fee was is that We're imposing a fee on local property owners who are already paying a lot of taxes in our community and that's really not fair versus a percentage, which really the origin of those funds are the rental and the people renting, which most of the time are probably going to be out of area, out of state, or out of county. So they're really paying the lion's share, as it should be, right? So if they don't rent it, the short-term rental, then they're not going to be subject to any fees. And I think that's probably the most economical to our citizens and our property owners that are paying the taxes today. So the incremental aspects of this is we get to see how it works out, and we will make the changes accordingly. And all these things that are being said, all the input, all the emails, those are all being logged, and they're burning my brain. But for us as a group when we consider the next phase of this. And I don't know when that will be, but I'm certainly open to this. This is not one and done. It's not two and done. It's going to take incremental steps. And I think we're going to have a better product in the end. So I appreciate everyone's concern and buy-in at this point, even though that might not be completely exclusive. I shudder sometimes when we talk about more regulations in an environment where people say you're over-regulated, but I think we're trying to strike a balance here to where this specific industry, and it is an industry, and how the impacts are in residential areas is a concern. It's about the livability of the people that live here versus maybe the people that visit here, and so... That's a broad statement, and we'll say we are working on it.

Thank you.

Chair, I yield back.

All right. I was going to call on Mr. Munns if you wanted to comment on any of the things that have been mentioned.

Yeah. Commissioner Helms' question is a good one about Collins Lake. I think that in Chapter 810.030, that section, it deals with applicability. And what we've tried to do there is exempt properties that are in commercial zones. And these properties all have something in common. We were looking at, does it apply to hotels, motels, bed and breakfast facilities, hostels, lodging and resort accommodations in commercial zones, campgrounds, recreational vehicle camping facilities and organizational camps? All of those facilities have generally on-site management, some things that are similar to Collins Lake. But Collins Lake is not in a commercial zone. It's in a mountain rural residential zone. And so when we heard comments from the public about that zone, we had a wide range of accommodations in there. You have both Collins Lake, you have the individual short-term rentals that don't have a host or anyone who lives on-site. You also have circumstances where an owner of a property will own a neighboring property and be present and be very similar to like a resort because they're able to respond to things immediately. And kind of all things in between. And so when we write these regulations, we try to be very objective. And so that has equal application to everyone and we have an objective standard we can apply. That way it's fair and we're not singling out one group for preferential treatment or having these... Regulations have a much greater impact on a different type of owner of a property. So we have to be very careful with that. And so I think if we can come up with objective standards that are consistent with this, you know, there's some room there we can refine this language. But I think that what we need to do is find the language that truly separates out a property in some manner that it is different than another property in that. And we have a very objective standard to apply equally across all property owners that wish to have an SDR.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Schroeder.

So I think we've heard a lot of reasonable ideas today, and I think I'm going to ask this of Mr. Muntz and my colleagues. I'm assuming that if we pass this today, it doesn't mean that it is an immutable document, that if we get something on the books, given the testimony we've had today, we can continue to tweak this. I mean, I hate to Mr. Munson, to tweak this to take some of those ideas that seem reasonable to me to incorporate them into this ordinance. So I just want to get a read from my colleagues that if we move forward with this today that that's going to be our long-term intention.

Gary has a comment on this. Yes, so the board gave clear direction to me and staff, get this done by June 30th. We've done it. It's now up to you to hopefully approve this today. The internal task force is on hiatus. My suggestion is you give this six months and see what other issues come up that you are not aware of today, and then we'll reconvene the internal task force, involve the public, and you can revise the code at that time.

Okay. Right.

Thank you. Does that sound good?

I just, yeah, mostly because I, again, I see the issue of the differences in various, that we may want to take an additional look at, but I don't think we should impede the process today. No. Yeah. Okay. I agree. Thank you.

Yeah. And I agree. I mean, I... As I mentioned, we heard loud and clear, we want something to move ahead. And I think the big issue here is if you look, I mean, the data shows there's about 1,300, only 300 of them are registered. And, you know, that in itself is really kind of an issue that we need to kind of move forward on and make sure that they're all getting registered. I do think some of the citizens of testimony Today brought up some really valid points. I think we can revisit those things and agree sounds like we're in agreement on that as Study this let's get moving on it, and we'll continue to bring it back to the table and refine it So with that any good counsel I

Thanks. The last time we were here, Chair, and I just checked with Mr. Munns on this, there was some mention of involving sort of a community advisory capacity. And I had a conversation with Mr. McCluskey and two other owners after the last hearing. And clearly, I know, Mr. McCluskey, I'm not volunteering you, but he was suggesting he's happy to participate in that. And it seems like to me it would be helpful, whatever that looks like, especially for owners such as Mr. McCluskey and others who presented to the board today and prior time. That seems pretty critical. They just have all that firsthand knowledge that we don't.

Yeah.

So I think we can make that happen, correct, Gary? We can talk about that separately. It doesn't need to be part of the code language.

Okay. All right. All right. With that being said, if there's no other comments, is there a motion?

Chair, I move that we approve the short-term rental fees and fines resolution.

No, sorry, it's wrong. Page three, please.

Ah, I see it. Wait, page three. I see it, I see it. I move that we read by title only. Thank you.

I'll second that.

Okay, Commissioner West has moved to read by title only. Commissioner Schrader, second to that. Any further discussion or comments? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll? Commissioner Savas.

Aye. Commissioner Helm. Aye. Commissioner Schroeder. Aye. Commissioner West.

Aye.

Mr. Chair. Aye. Motion passes five to zero, Mr. Chair. Okay, clerk, would you do me a favor and read the ordinance by title only? Yes, Mr. Chair. The ordinance is titled Ordinance 07-2026, an ordinance adopting Clackamas County Code Chapter 8.10, short-term rentals and declaring an emergency. That is the title of the ordinance, Mr. Chair.

And may I please have a motion for the final approval of the ordinance?

Chair, I move we approve ordinance 07-2026. Second.

Commissioner Savas has moved to approve the ordinance 07-2026. Commissioner Helm is seconded to that. Any further discussion or comments? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll?

Commissioner West. Aye. Commissioner Schroeder.

Aye.

Commissioner Helm. Aye. Commissioner Savas. Aye. Mr. Chair. Aye. Motion passes 5-0, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Gary, what's next? Thank you. Your next public hearing is approval of a resolution to adopt fees and fines for Clackamas County Code, Chapter 8.10, short-term rentals. No county general funds are involved. Jeff will present as well. Jeff, please, go ahead.

Yes, thank you. Chapter 8.10 creates a new category of regulations to be enforced and then fines to be imposed for those violations. There are also violations of existing portions of county code that are that are enforced through this and also through other portions of the county organization. So we have violations of noise control, chapter 605, that is enforced to the sheriff's office, but by setting up this program, we have collaboration between reports that come in to code enforcement for short-term rentals and then communication with Clackamas County Sheriff's Office. Along with that, very similar to the vehicle parking and towing, the transient room tax, Chapter 802, that's administered by finance. Chapters 901 and 902 and 1003, those are abatement for dangerous buildings, application of the building code and solid waste and waste management. Those are all administered through... CODE ENFORCEMENT THROUGH DTD AS WELL AS THEN THROUGH PLANNING TITLE 12 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE SO THOSE ARE ALREADY STANDING AND ARE ALSO BROUGHT INTO THIS CHAPTER 8.10 THEN THE NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ARE FAILURE TO REGISTER A SHORT-TERM RENTAL FAILURE TO PAY THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL FEE SUBLEDDING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL FAILURE TO INCLUDE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION NUMBER IN AN ADVERTISEMENT and transfer of a short-term rental registration. And then finally, the failure to post a short-term rental registration contact information in a location visible from the nearest public roadway when the STR is occupied. So with that, we have those new regulations to enforce as well as enforce the current portions of the county code. At last, the first reading of the ordinance, we brought in information regarding similar violations in the county code and staff recommended that these be treated similar to a code enforcement violation priority two, which have an initial citation out of $411 And then a range of penalty amounts of $750 to $2,500, depending on the severity and the kind of repeated nature of the violations. So we prepared a resolution to treat those violations as a priority two violation. And as well, the second component of this is setting the fee. As we discussed earlier, the current fee is 0.85% in Chapter 8.10, and this would propose increasing that fee to 1.5% and moving that fee into Appendix A, which is where the county fees are located. With both of those changes, I guess delegating authority to the county administrator as well as to where to put this program in the county organization, and then those fees and penalty amounts would be included in Appendixes A and B to the county code, respectively, as part of where that program will be located. Happy to answer any questions that you have.

All right. Colleagues, any questions? All right. I'll now open the public hearing on this item and turn to the clerk to help us moderate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you attend this meeting in person and wish to comment on this specific item, this is your opportunity to please file a blue card and deposit in the box and be found by the Senators. Mr. Chair, seeing no members of the public physically present in which to comment, with your consent, I'll attend to those attending virtually. If you're attending this meeting virtually and wish to comment on this specific item, this is your opportunity to please raise your hand, and I will call on you in the order that I see. This is a final call. If you're attending this meeting virtually and wish to speak for this specific item, to please raise your hand. Mr. Chair, I see no other members of the public, either physically or virtually present, wish to comment on this specific item today.

Thank you. I'll close the public hearing, check on my colleagues. Do you have any questions or comments? Seeing none, is there a motion?

I move that we approve the short-term rental fees and fines resolution as presented.

Second.

Okay.

All right, Commissioner West has moved to approve the short-term rental fees and fines resolution as presented. Commissioner Helm has seconded that. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll again?

Commissioner Sater. Aye.

Commissioner West. Aye. Commissioner Helm.

Aye.

Commissioner Savas. Aye. Mr. Chair. Aye. Motion passes 5-0, Mr.

Chair. All right. I apologize. I have to step away. I'm supposed to be speaking next door at a volunteer event. So I'm going to turn the helm over to my esteemed colleague, Commissioner Schrader.

Thank you, Chair. Shall I move or should I just... You stay there, please, Vice Commissioner. Okay, wherever you want. That's fine.

Stay here.

So next is the consent agenda for the Board of County Commissioners. It's a long one. Andrew, would you please read the consent agenda?

Consent agenda for the Board of County Commissioners. Item A, elected officials, one. Approval of previous business meeting minutes for the Board of County Commissioners. B, disaster management, one. Approval of an amendment of a grant agreement with the state of Oregon for flood mitigation assistance. Total value is $570,046.23 for three years. Funding is through federal flood mitigation assistance grant program. No county general funds are involved. C, finance. 1, approval of a supplemental budget resolution for fiscal year 2025-26. The fiscal impact is a net increase in appropriations of $125,000 of county general funds. D, technology services. 1, approval to amend the contract with Workforce Software Managed Services. Amend value is $200,000. Total value is $221,250 for two years. Funding is through departmental cost allocations, which does include a small portion of budgeted general funds. E. Juvenile, 1. Approval of a contract with Parrot Creek and Family Services for outpatient juvenile sex offense treatment programming services. Total agreement value is $498,500, expiring on June 30, 2031. Funding is the Oregon Youth Authority. No county general funds are involved. F. Transportation Development, 1. Approval of board order vacating a portion of Whiskey Lane, a non-maintained local access road, and an attached alley. Total value is $3,211.45. Funding is through the petitioner. No county general funds are involved. Two, approval of a resolution declaring the public necessity and purpose for the acquisition of rights-of-way, easements, and fee property, and authorizing good-faith negotiations and condemnation proceedings for the Stafford 65th Elgin Roundabout Project. Total project value is $12,805,240. Funding is through Community Road Fund, System Development Charge Funds, the City of Wilsonville, and Washington County. No county general funds are involved. Three, approval of an engineering and related services contract with HDR Engineering for the Clackamas County Regional Freight ITS Phase 2B project. Total agreement value is $290,501.87 for two years. Funding is through United States Department of Transportation and the County Road Fund. No county general funds are involved. G, health housing human services. One, approval of personal services contract with uncommon bridges for recruitment, facilitation, ongoing support services for the housing services advisory group and coordinated housing access core team. Amendment value is $265,661 for 12 months. Total agreement value is $453,401 for 22 months. Funding is through Metro Supportive Housing Services. No county general funds are involved. 2. Approval of an amendment to a contract with Native American Youth and Family Center for emergency family shelter services. Amendment value is $1,859,843. Total contract value is $7,621,281.30 for four years. Funding is through Metro Supportive Housing Services funds. No county general funds are involved. Three, approval of public improvement contract with Troy Bauman for the Arbor Terrace ADA Sidewalks and Ramps Improvement Project. Agreement values $23,500 for six months, $153,000 of funding from the Community Development Block Grants, and $50,000 from Housing Authority funds. No county general funds are involved. Four, approval of an amendment to a personal services contract with Ant Farm to provide shelter, outreach, and engagement services in rural Clackamas County. Amendment value is $1,056,707 for one year. Total contract value is $4,197,751 for four years. Funding is through Governor's State of Emergency to Homelessness State funding of $216,342 and $840,365 of budgeted county general funds. 5. Approval of amendment to a local subrecipient grant agreement with Clackamas Service Center to the Housing Assistance and Resilience for Tenants program. Contract value is $450,000 for one year. Total contract value is $900,000 for two years. Funding is through Metro Supportive Housing Services measure funds. No county general funds are involved. 6. Approval of an amendment to a personal services contract with Clackamas Service Center for site-based homeless outreach and on-call emergency services. Amendment value is $298,853 for one year. Total contract value is $1,823,207 for four years and eight months. Funding is through Metro Supportive Housing Services measure funds. No county general funds are involved. Seven. Approval of sub-recipient agreement with Children's Center to provide child abuse medical assessments and forensic interviews. Total agreement value is $151,800 for one year. Funding is through budgeted county general funds. Eight. Approval amendment to an intergovernmental agreement with Multnomah County to increase service level and compensation. Amendment value is $340,480 for 15 months. Total agreement value is $2,454,760 for 36 months. Funding is the Oregon Health Authority, Care Oregon, and Trillium Community Health Plan. No county general funds are involved. 9. Approval of six revenue grant agreements with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for Continuum of Care Programs Administration. Total value of agreements is $2,008,948 for one year. Funding is the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and $149,602 of budgeted county general funds. H. County Council. 1. approval of a resolution to opt in to recreational immunity protections for local government pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 105.66823. No county general funds are involved. Madam Chair, that concludes the Board of Commissioners consent agenda.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, does anyone have a wish to remove any items from the consent agenda?

Madam Vice Chair, I would like to remove item F2 from the consent agenda, please.

Right. If we need a vote for that, do we not? No. No, we don't. So we just say we will.

Right, but we will address that after the consent. We'll have that as a discussion item.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda with that particular piece removed?

So moved.

Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Andrew, could you please call the poll?

So the motion is to approve the consent agenda with the removal of item F2.

That is correct. Thank you.

Calling the poll. Commissioner West? Here. I mean...

And I am here voting aye.

Commissioner Savas? Aye. Commissioner Helm?

Aye.

Madam Chair?

Aye. Motion passes four to zero, Madam Chair. All right, we're going to deviate from the script. We will now right now have the board discussion item on item F2 from the consent agenda, which is under transportation and development. approval of a resolution declaring the public necessity and purpose for the acquisition of rights of way, easements, and fee property, and authorizing good faith negotiations and condemnation proceedings for the Stafford 65th Ellingson Roundabout Project. Total project value is $12,805,240. Funding is through the Community Road Fund, System Development Charge Funds, the City of Wilsonville, and Washington County. No county general funds are involved. So any questions or comments the Board has?

Yes, Mary. The reason I pulled this is based on the letter from Ms. Bartholomew that brought up some concerns. And here's where I will agree that this makes sense to me that some of these road projects are indeed, as she mentioned earlier, Because of the lack of widening I-205, these are putting more traffic on our back roads, which I find concerning. And it's a very band-aided approach to dealing with traffic. So I just want to better understand it so that I know what that end result is going to be. And this came up on the consent agenda. So I just think I need more information on it. And I know Dan Johnson, director of DTD, did send a note to us as well. But we've been in constant back-to-back meetings for the last three days. So I haven't had a chance to review it.

And when you're ready, I will comment because I have a background on this too. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Savas.

Yeah, you're right. Dan Johnson, head of DTD, did send us an email. I am actually pretty familiar with this. I won't say I know as much as everyone, but I'll share what I know. And that is that we've been trying to get this oddball intersection. Are you familiar with that intersection? Yes. Okay. Very odd, very dangerous, and the traffic flow increases on Stafford Road have been something that has been a concern of mine for a long time. There's a lot of accidents that happen there. I look at this as a safety issue primarily, and knowing because of the off and on nature and trickling partnerships to make this happen, this has been on the table and off the table. And so now we've got all the forces kind of aligning. And I'm hoping that we can capture this moment to at least get the right of way underway, which takes a long time. That could take up to two years, right? And so my experience has been that the sooner we get the right of way acquisition issue up to par, or not up to par, but in place, we can start acquiring those properties. I agree that... The 205 matter is aggravating these things, but at the same token is because of the developments that are happening on Stafford Road, Frog Pond and everything. Some of that is because of that, as well as industry growing in Willisville. So our population is also growing. So naturally, even if I-205 was improved, this is not a lost investment by any means. But Primarily a safety issue in a very odd place. I know the area really well. I've walked it It's dangerous to walk by the way, but I've walked through there. I have an idea what the project is and I do understand that The Stafford, Hamlet, Ms. Bartholomew, and others have had more of a focus on the PGE poll issue, and this is not related to that. But are there some connecting things and factors? Absolutely. But this has been on the books for a long time. I think we can learn more, but I wouldn't want to impede our ability to partner and have all these partner agencies because if we lose them, then the cost for us to do it alone goes up significantly. That's all I have for now.

Thank you, Commissioner Savas. Commissioner West, you have wanted to comment, please.

I totally agree with everything Commissioner Savas just said and feel the same way. These intersections that are being dealt with have chronically been really unsafe for a really long time, and at times even failing intersections. They rank an F. Here we are once again balancing good public policy. Every policy has an impact. It may allow traffic to flow through that corridor in a way that people are dodging 205 and I-5 and that policy's decisions on our transportation infrastructure is pushing them onto county roads. But as that doesn't increase, I don't want to see more fatal accidents or harmful things happen to people trying to traverse those areas. And we have the funding available to make sure that these failing intersections aren't failing anymore and they function in a way that is better for all involved. I think proper flow through that area is better though we wish it wasn't as much. And those are some of the things that are outside the county's control. I also know the sensitivity of the issue because of the scenic highway that it is and the PGE drama that we've all been having to endure and go through, including the residents that live there. I understand that sensitivity. But these intersections are unsafe and they're not appropriate for the size of the population that has grown in those parts of the county. So we're trying to address... protecting the scenic byways, being understanding of that, while also understanding the safety needs to move traffic appropriately through that area. It's often a difficult balancing act in public policy because you pull one string here, it unravels over here, and it's always kind of like that. There are no, or very rarely, just perfectly clean wind winds all around the board. Often there are other impacts, and so we recognize that. But... I think that that's an important kind of perspective to share.

Thank you for that clarification, Commissioner. And Gary, yes?

Yes, Ashley, the Commissioner's covered pretty much also what Dan's email said. This project has been on your transportation system plan for maybe up to a decade, and it's really about safety concerns. You've received a lot of public comment to please take action and do it now. The city of Lake Oswego, city of Wilsonville, Washington County has been supportive of this project. So you could delay this to your next business meeting to have a public discussion. It will delay. Every delay, the costs go up. But this is a standard practice as far as today. It's simply to approve the right-of-way process, which Commissioner Savas said could take up to two years. There is no condemnations will happen. And if there's even a suggestion of that, it always comes back to you first, and you could say no. So this is just to start that process.

I appreciate you indulging me, and I appreciate Kelly, Ms. Bartholomew, for spotlighting this, because until I better understand things, I need a full explanation, and when somebody brings it to our attention, I appreciate that. So thank you for schooling me, and then to go ahead and put it back on, does it need its own consent agenda?

So this will be an actual motion to approve this item only.

Okay, yes.

If you're ready to do that.

I have a question for you.

Is this not one of the intersections where Commissioner Schrader and I, three and a half years ago, went to a city council meeting in Lake Oswego, and then they had to put on the ballot It was just over a small sliver of property to be able to appropriately put an $18 million improvement on a roundabout on a failed intersection out by the Lake Oswego area. And there was a lot of pushback from individuals that are part of the Stafford Hamlet group. And there was a small easement that they needed to do this actual work. And there was this drama around conservation and property. They put a special ballot initiative on before Lake Oswego voters just so that they could do this intersection and get around that conservation easement issue. Mark, the... Commissioner Schrader and I received all the bullets and arrows at that meeting from counselors and upset members and Dan came and testified and tried to make sure that the record was straightened and share the facts of what was going on and how we were making an $18 million transportation. investment in a failed intersection where many accidents happened over there. Then there has been many, many years, even before I was a city councilor in Wilsonville on the 65th and Ellingson intersection, which is wonky and dangerous. And you just drive by, there's like broken headlights everywhere on the side of the road. It's a disaster. So I... Am I right? It's also this Lake Oswego one that has all this history behind it. Exactly. And we're a ways out from getting it done, but it is a lot of public effort, entire ballot initiatives through the city, and explaining to many that had consternation about why this was good public policy has gone forward for the last three and a half years. It's crazy. It's right here on the agenda. Here we are.

Yeah, and my understanding is it is just a small sliver. I drive that area all the time, and there's more than one roundabout. And actually, it eases the transportation system there. And to us, what really became the clear piece, it is an incredible safety issue at that particular area, which is why we felt it necessary to move forward. And yeah, we got a few tomatoes thrown at us at that point. meeting, but that's part of the job. So there you go.

Well, with that, then I would move to approve item F2. I'll second. That was on the consent agenda. Okay.

It's been moved and seconded. Andrew, you call the poll, please.

Commissioner West. Aye. Commissioner Savas. Aye. Commissioner Helm.

Aye.

Madam Chair.

Aye. It is approved. Four is zero. Yes, ma'am. All right. So where are we now? Okay. So now I will recess as the Board of Commissioners and convene as the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District Board of Directors. Gary, what do we got?

Thank you, Chair. This is the consent agenda for the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District. Andrew, would you please read the consent agenda?

North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District Board of Directors Consent Agenda. Item A, approval of resolution to opt in to recreational immunity protections for local government pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 105.66823. No county general funds are involved. That concludes the Board of Directors Consent Agenda.

Do any of my fellow Democrats, excuse me, Directors. Sorry, I just saw the D and... Well, that was a Freudian slip. Do any of my fellow directors wish to remove any items in the consent agenda?

You're going to create a scandal that you just called me a Democrat.

I know. Good God, I got you.

Publicly, Martha? I got you. Look at the outrage. I got you in trouble. We're going to have a hearing full of people here in a minute.

Well, you're going to have to call me a Republican one day. I know.

God forbid.

We can get equally in trouble. How's that? In any case, no one wants to remove this item from the consent agenda, so may I have a motion? I move we approve the NCPRD consent agenda.

All right, or second. Okay. We're all mixed up today. I think we're tired. Ben, what'd you do? Tired from last night.

Yeah, we were up late last night. It's not our fault. Yeah. Okay. So Director Helm has moved to approve the NCPRD consent agenda, and Director Savas has seconded. Any further discussion? Not seeing none. Clerk, let's please call the poll.

Director West. Aye. Director Savas. Yeah, nonpartisan. Aye.

I'm a non-affiliated I. Madam Chair. I just love the world I.

Okay, there we go. No labels here. No labels. No labels.

All right. So now we are at the lighting district. Am I now? Gary?

Yes, if you'd please convene as that board.

I'll now adjourn as the NCPRD Board of Directors and convene as the Service District No. 5 Street Lighting Board of Directors. Gary.

Thank you. This is the consent agenda for Service District No. 5 Street Lighting. Andrew, would you please read the consent agenda?

Street lighting district board of directors consent agenda. Item A, approval of a resolution to opt in to recreational immunity protections for local government pursuant to Oregon revised statutes 105.66823. No county general funds are involved. That concludes the board of directors consent agenda.

Okay. Do any of my fellow directors wish to remove any items from the consent agenda? Seeing none, may I have a motion? I move we approve the service district number five consent agenda.

All second.

Okay. Director Helm has moved to approve the service district number five consent agenda and Director Ben has seconded it. Any further discussion? Seeing none, let's call the poll.

Director Savas. Aye. Director Helm.

Aye.

Director West. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye.

It is approved I'll now adjourn as a service district number five board of directors and convene as the water and environment services board of directors Gary Next is the consent agenda for water environment services Andrew.

Would you please read the consent agenda?

Water and Environment Services Board of Directors Consent Agenda. Item A, approval of resolution to opt in to recreational immunity protections for local government pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 105.66823. No county general funds are involved. Approval of a supplemental budget for transfer appropriations for fiscal year 2025-26. No fiscal impact. Funding is through Water Environment Services Sanitary Sewer Funds. No county general funds are involved. C. Approval of a contract with Horner Enterprises for Biosolids Land Application Services. Contract value $750,000 for five years. Funding is through Water Environment Services Sanitary Sewer Operating Funds. No county general funds are involved. D. approval of a contract with Horner enterprises for biosolids hauling services contract values two million five hundred thousand dollars for five years Fundings through water environment services sanitary sewer operating funds no county general funds are involved Madam chair that concludes the board of directors consent agenda do any of my fellow directors wish to remove any items from the consent agenda

Seeing none, Andrew, can you call the poll, please? Oops. We need a motion. Oh, we need a motion.

Sorry.

I'm moving, guys. And I'm also, like I said, it was up too late.

I move that we approve the West consent agenda as read. Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Director West has moved to approve the West consent agenda, and Director Savas has seconded. Any further discussion? Okay, clerk, let's call the poll.

Director Helm. Aye. Director Savas. Aye. Director West. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. Motion passes 4-0, Madam Chair.

Thank you, colleagues. I'm having a day, aren't I? Okay, I'll now adjourn as the Water Environment Services Board of Directors and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Gary.

Thank you. Next is County Administrator Update. That's me. Because of the late hour, I will skip my normal report other than to remind everyone that the Board of Commissioners is on recess next week, June 29th through July 6th. because of the Independence Day holiday and because the majority of you are attending the Association of Oregon County's legislative retreat. There is no business meeting next Thursday, July 2nd. The next board business meeting is Thursday, July 9th. That is my report. Back to you, Chair.

All right. Well, colleagues, it's at Commissioner Communications. How about Commissioner Savas, would you like to start?

Yeah, thank you. As I mentioned earlier, we had a wide-ranging amount of public comment today. What I want to do is just kind of mention, it's going back to Tristan Roland who came here and talked about his interaction with CCSO when he was walking along the freeway apparently. And it struck me, because I have a family member of mine that is bipolar and had an issue with, or a moment in which she was considering suicide. And though it was not in Clackamas County, I was very pleasantly surprised by the interaction with the city police and then ultimately the state police and also the California Highway Patrol when she took on the highway and also in another state, the local county and city officials that interacted with her. And I will say across the board, I was surprised, number one, That they return my calls and concerns and they and this interesting point I want to make here every law enforcement person that interacted with her Talked to her was Polite did what they could but in the end they had there was nothing they could do other than extend help right in offers and But she was behaving radically, and they tracked her. But along the way, my point is that it goes to show that I think training and compassion in law enforcement is far better than it once was, way better. And I have seen our Clackamas County Sheriff's deputies as professionals in dealing with the increase really of these incidences where people are either having a breakdown or they're having or suffering from an overdose. The compassion of all our emergency responders and our public safety officials, how they deal with these moments and when people are having that personal crisis. So it just struck me on a personal note that I just wanted to call that out and just say, acknowledge that what our law enforcement people do is much more than law enforcement. It's about public safety and helping people in their moments of need. So I appreciate him bringing that to our attention. And like I said, it just struck a personal chord with me today. And, Chair, that's what I have for today. Thank you.

Oh, I get to go before Commissioner West?

Well, because Commissioner Ben's going to be here, isn't it? I know. Commissioner Ben's going to, like, top us off here, right? No, yeah, that's fine. Yeah, go ahead. Okay.

I'm just going down the wrong list.

First of all, I want to respond. After Gerald Murphy got up and spoke earlier before the hearings about the general authorization permit up on in the Welch's area, So Greg Geiss, the director of WES, sent an email during this, right after you spoke. Murph, he's very responsive. He wanted to mention that they're seeing The existing wastewater undercrossing was built around 2012 along with an adjacent drinking water undercrossing. WES also completed a replacement treated wastewater outfall around 2013. The temporary armoring of the existing wastewater and drinking water undercrossings will happen this summer at an estimated cost of $300,000. The long-term fix, a new longer undercrossing, will be completed next summer at an estimated cost of $1.5 million. constructing a separate treatment facility on the north side of the river and discharging the effluent to somewhere else other than the Sandy River would cost many millions more and with considerable uncertainty around environmental permitting. So that's likely not going to happen. So that's just an update so you kind of know where things stand. Yesterday I attended the Portland Metro Chamber of Commerce annual meeting at the Moda Center. It's the largest turnout they've ever had, probably because it was at the Moda Center and because the number one topic of discussion was the Moda Center, which is quite controversial right now, whether this asset that belongs to the city of Portland should be renovated or not. And it was interesting. There were many, many protesters outside blocking our ability to get into the parking garage. People feel very strongly, and I feel very strongly, about First Amendment rights. So I think everyone has the right to protest this, whether you're for or against it. Was it was an interesting meeting with some interesting panelists, but I will just say in short The county has assets the cities have assets Those assets belong to the people right and even though the trailblazers are the anchor tenant of the The Moda Center is used for many, many other things like culture. There's music. There's monster truck shows. There's Disney on ice. There's, I mean, and I've been to the Moda Center many, many times. It's over 30 years old. It's in need of renovation. But I do believe that any jurisdiction should take care of their facilities. So if it's in need of renovation, it's a public-private partnership. It's not being funded entirely by the city. It's the city, the county, the state. And some by the new owners of the Blazers. So anyway, however you feel about it, that's neither here nor there. I do want to mention something that affects us. And that is Michael Liu, who's the outgoing Portland Chamber President, got up and spoke near the end and brought up what I keep talking about, which is the 82nd Avenue Transit Project.

Okay.

Andrew, I just asked for this one slide and I think I've shown it to you guys before, but I want to bring up one of the reasons I keep kind of harping on this is I am in full support of the base project, which is the current project design here at the top. It is the most efficient. It is the most practical money-wise. The bus trips are eight to 10 minutes faster. All of the shelters will be redone. There's gonna be better transit reliability and they will be using the new zero emission buses. And there will be no lane reallocations for this. As they add the BAT lanes, that additional one to two minute faster trips, the price tag goes up exponentially. And when I say exponentially, I mean many, many millions of dollars per some bat lanes to more bat lanes. And with the impending IBR, the Interstate Bridge Replacement, that is supposed to actually start here in the next couple of years, the diversion that's gonna take place is going to be insane. An 82nd Avenue will literally be one lane of traffic, like literally one car on each side of the road. It's going to disrupt businesses. Michael Liu brought this up because they are also, the Portland Chamber for the most part, on board with the current project design, which is the base design. so that this does not disrupt the businesses on 82nd Avenue. We're talking seven miles, seven miles of businesses that will be affected. So there's grave concern, and I've been on the Budget and Policy Committee for several months, and they're still working out the numbers and everything. I would love to have a price tag to go with each of these designs. And I'd like to bring that forward to you next time because I think that's what they're doing right now is putting numbers on this. So anyway, I'm all about updating, upgrading this and making it more accessible for ridership along 82nd Avenue, but I can't justify the price. of more bat lanes or some bat lanes. So anyway, the fact that you brought it up in front of a very big crowd of people yesterday was very interesting. So that's all, Vice Chair. I'll get back to you.

Can I come back then talk and then come back to you, Paul?

Yeah, I want to talk about this in particular. Go ahead. That's fine.

Go ahead. You go ahead.

Yeah, go ahead. I want to just point out As someone who also supported the safety aspects of 82nd Avenue and why we were gonna do this, as part of this, Initially, it was a state highway conversion to a city. There's a name for it. I'm having a moment. But orphan highway. So it was an orphan highway that basically agreement that ODOT would pay a portion of monies, and then the city or local jurisdiction would take ownership of it and pay the balance. So we all got behind. This is a region. And, you know, for all those reasons of safety and everything else. And all of a sudden, it feels like a bait and switch with this bat lane thing, right? We approve the alignment, all these other things, and suddenly, now we have a bat lane thing. And... I'm compelled to send a letter and have the board maybe bring it up next time we meet at a Tuesday issues issue. When I was on that committee in that short interim time before Commissioner Helm took the helm on this, I brought up this diversion issue, and I'm glad to see the numbers are finally identified that there is diversion. But you know what? Diversion is a safety issue. So you go from a design that is designed to improve safety, and then we're going to peel it back and somehow expose our neighborhoods to that diversion because that diversion is going to go through neighborhoods, and it should remain on that highway, right? That's the purpose of the highway. So I'm troubled by this because, again, it suddenly now exacerbates diversion and it takes us away from the issue of safety. That said, you also have an agency trying that here, who's also pushing for this, that can't even seem to pay for its current operations, right? So why would we start imposing more cost, more investment, in an agency that somehow can't even take care of its own assets? So I think that this is bad timing. I think it's for them. I don't think it's a good project, and they're not taking into account all the issues of that. I propose that we put this on issue with the draft letter, someone crafted a letter, staff, again, voicing our opposition to this and citing the specific safety features and the fact that they don't seem to have the funds to even maintain current operations.

And I don't believe this diversion includes the diversion that is going to happen from the interstate bridge replacement. So these were initial numbers from last year, and I don't think that that's even been talked about. And I will say, too, ODOT was neutral on bat lanes at the beginning of this. And at the end, they came out and said they are not for bat lanes. So that said a lot to me, too, because they know what the end result of this is going to be like. So anyway, yeah, I think that's a great idea. I think we should craft a letter and state how we feel.

Well, this is something we should be discussing under issues, I assume, Gary?

We'll add to issues on July 7th when you're back from recess.

Okay, great. That will be in time. Okay, Commissioner Ben.

You know what else is a major safety issue? Considering taking mass transit on 82nd Avenue. That in its own self is an absolute safety issue. So, I mean, just fundamentally, that has been a chronic problem up and down 82nd. And I don't know if... people who have cars would feel safe going on to mass transit period on 82nd, which has all kinds of safety and issues around criminality and all kinds of stuff like that. That is the hotbed of law enforcement calls and whatnot for that part of the county and going into Multnomah County. It's an issue overall. So I support moving this to Tuesday. So I just, I want to bring something up. really quick is, as we continue to talk about, I'm going to talk about, I'm going to go back to SEPs again for a second. So there's a really well-established economic theory known as the Peltzman effect. And we use this theory in public health and health care when we push forward policies. And I actually think it gets a little bit to some of the comments you made, Commissioner Savas, kind of maybe a theory around those comments. The economist, it's an economic theory, but we do apply that model to different safety measures and policies, such as clean needles reduce the immediate risk of infectious diseases. But what it also does is it reduces, as you continue to pass out these needles to individuals that are using them, you reduce the perceived risk. of that activity and then you reducing the perceived risk and then you're heaping on something as potent as fentanyl that type of opioid on top of that and you're not bringing recovery treatment accountability and really being engaged with these individuals that are using these services. you see an increase of that risky behavior because you have a reduced perceived risk. And so if we're not really careful, if we're not well regulated, if we're not really bringing that piece of accountability attached to these services, then you will continue to see the baseline of opioid overdoses continue to be high in the community. And there's many other examples within public health where we have seen we can mitigate it to a point, but if there is a still perceived less risk, then you will see more of that behavior. And so I think that striking that balance like we're talking about, where we still see the need for some of these services in the right context, we also see the need for safer public spaces for the community as a whole. And so that's I think that's just a thought to leave you guys with when we talk about policies around SCPs. And there's also a treatment gap, right? So when Oregon ranks near the bottom nationally for access to addiction treatment, It's fair to be critical of the SEPs in the Portland metro area because we're managing addiction rather than solving it. We're managing the chaos rather than saying how do we create systems that cause this not to be the norm anymore in our community. we're keeping the pool still somewhat active of these users at large in a way that doesn't get that, we have reduced the number of overdose, but we're still way too high, the baseline's way too high. So that's the goal is how do you overall reduce those overdose and deaths by overdose? It's by having people get through a care continuum to where the norm for them is not just subsisting in their addiction and not progressing further. So I'll leave the community with those thoughts around why I'm trying to push this policy and ordinance so strongly. I really appreciate, once again, the public's engagement, even if they don't totally agree or come from more of the status quo mindset around this issue. But I think that this type of thinking is what has helped lead Clackamas County where we're successful today. And I think it's pragmatic and balanced. And I think it's less radical than what the norm is in the metro area. So I will... leave with that. And just wanted to continue to take my time to give my thoughts on that issue. Thank you.

Not a problem. Well, colleagues, it's lunchtime. I will forego any thoughts I may have. And I have many, but last night was a long night. So let's adjourn. And it's great seeing you all today.