Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good morning and welcome everyone to Administrator issues and updates on April 21st, 2026. County Administrator Gary Schmidt, would you please call the role? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Roll call. Commissioner Savis, present. Commissioner Helm here. Commissioner Shrader here. Chair Roberts here. All right. Thank you, Gary. What's up first? Uh, if you would please convene as the OSU Extension Board. All right. I'll now recess as a board of county commissioners convene as a OSU extension and 4H service district board of directors.

Thank you, Chair. And Commissioner West is here. He just stepped out for a moment. He'll be here shortly. You're now meeting as the Oregon State University Extension and 4 Service District. Uh this is an advisory board and commission appointment. Andrew, go ahead, please.

Mr. Chair, the OSU Extension and 4H service district budget committee currently has three openings due to term expirations. Recruitment opened to the public in January of 2026 and closed in January of 2026. Three applications were received and one is recommended for appointment. The recommendation is as follows. Bishop Nixon to a first term ending April of 2029. The board could select other candidates or require further recruitment. Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Directors, may I have a motion? So moved. Second.

All right. Commissioner Savas has moved to appoint Bishop Nixon to the district budget committee. Uh Director Shrader has second of that. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll? Commissioner Helm, I. Commissioner Shrader, I. Commissioner Savis, I. Mr. Chair, I.

Motion passes four to zero. Mr. Sure. Thank you, Andrew. I will now adjourn as OSU extension and 4 uh service district board of directors and convene as the hospital facility authority. Gary, thank you. And also, my apologies. I want to clarify you. That was the Clackamus County Extension and 4 Service District. Oregon State University we contract with. It's not their district. It's your district. My apologies. I didn't I missed that in the script and the section. All right. Uh you're now meeting as a hospital facility authority of Clackamus County. to review the hospital facility authority of Clakamus County bylaws and you're also going to meet in the board of commissioners right after this as well. So you're meeting two bodies but for the same purpose. Elizabeth Comfort, finance director will explain more. Go ahead please.

Thank you. Elizabeth Comfort, finance director, and also with Hospital Facility Authority. And uh today before you, we have an update um with our bylaws for the hospital facility authority to recognize the uh changes that the board made last month through an ordinance to recognize the board of county commissioners of Clackamus County to be the body of the hospital facility authority. those five members and then also you can have up to 11 members. So these are just updates to the bylaws for uh the authority.

All right. Thank you, Elizabeth. Commissioners, may I have a motion on these new uh revised bylaws? I move to approve the revised bylaws. I'll second. Right. Commissioner Helman has moved to approve the revised bylaws. It's been seconded by Commissioner Schrader. Any further discussion? Yes. I just a quick question offhand. Elizabeth, do you know how much uh debt or bonds the hospital authority actually um endeavored into?

Uh the hospital facility authority does not have any debt itself. What we do, we act as a conduit for um healthc care facilities and we've done a number of them for Mary's Woods, Wamit View uh and Rose Villa uh that we've done recently in the last 10 years. We do have a couple of uh requests that are coming to us as we mentioned last month, but Lamoview has proposed something that will come to you later with more formally and then also Mary's Woods is has been inquiring. So, um but we do not as a hospital facility have any debt.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Thad. You're right. Um my other question is um not not a question, more of a comment. It it just seems confusing to call it a hospital authority when the purposes of which the debt is reduced or you know low in low low cost debt is uh for more housing on the housing side. So I'm just curious as to the hospital element versus you know is it is it specific to a medical facility at at let's say Mary Woods. So I can get probably better information uh for you later, but I do know that the history has been for hospital hospital facilities and then they branched out to health care. So these other facilities are residential um retirement communities that have a health care component so qualifies them. So sometimes you're right, it does add additional capacity apartments for these um communities.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Paul. And uh clerk, would you please call a poll for us now? Commissioner Helm, I. Commissioner Shrader, I. Commissioner Savis, I. Mr. Chair, I. Motion passes four to zero. Mr. Chair, thank you. So now I get to adjourn as a hospital facility authority and reconvene as board of county commissioners. Gary. All right. Now your meeting is the board of county commissioners for the exact same item, which is the hospital facility authority of Clakamus County bylaws. the authority just approved them. Now you're going to bless the bylaws that the authority just approved even though you're both of those. Elizabeth, go ahead

again. Elizabeth Comfort, finance director with Clauus County. So the process is the hospital facility authority takes action and they adopt or they approve and then it always comes to the board of county commissioners to finalize with approval. So again, I'm asking you to review the uh amended bylaws and uh approve the adopted uh bylaws that were accepted by the hospital facility authority. All right. Thank you again, Elizabeth. Commissioners motion. I move to approve the revised bylaws. Second.

All right. Commissioner Helm has moved to approve the revised bylaws. Commissioner Sav's second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll? Commissioner Schrader, I. Commissioner Helm, I. Commissioner Savis, I. Mr. Chair, I. Motion passes four to zero, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you, Elizabeth

and Gary. Thank you. Next is board appointment to the county's internal audit oversight committee. Uh, presenting is Jod Cochran, the county's internal auditor. And there was a memo in your packet. Go ahead, please, Jody. Good morning, chair, commissioners, administrator, councel. For the record, Jodie Cochran, county internal auditor. So, we did have a recent amendment, ordinance 032026 that reinforced the independence of the office of county internal audit through a restructuring of the internal audit oversight committee. This committee is is vital to its support in the of the county internal auditor. Prior to this amendment, both the chair and the vice chair served as members on the oversight committee. The vice chair position is no longer a designated position. So the board is continues to be represented by two members, both the chair and an appointed member. So now we're asking that the board appoints members to serve on the internal audit oversight committee for a term of two years. That member can be reappointed as well. So respect respectfully asking that you nominate and appoint one of your members to serve with the chair on the internal audit oversight committee.

All right, Commissioner Savis.

Yeah. Uh thank you Jody for this. um uh as we have this independent auditing process, your position and all the other audit aspects have uh evolved, you know, I know we're constantly making refinements and and I I'll just say this because I know that both Gary yourself and Chair Roberts know um that the essentially the purpose for this is to have continuity, right? So that because the vice chair rotates so you never have the same vice chair. You have no continuity. Um and so this would bring continuity to that that body and uh I I would just uh request my colleagues consider appointing myself to that. I I've been involved in this for a long time but I it's been very challenging as a as a vice chair for only one of the four years to come back four years later and pick up where we left off. And that's that's I think that's why this refinement is well welldeserved, well well meaning and I'll be a lot add a lot more effectiveness to this body.

All right. And Commissioner H. Well, I was going to move to appoint Commissioner's office to serve on the internal audit oversight committee. Thank you for stepping up and I will second that. All right. Thank you. So, right now we have um uh Commissioner Helm has uh moved to appoint Commissioner Savage to serve on the Internal Audit Oversight Committee. It's been seconded by Commissioner Shrader. And is there any further discussion? Uh seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll? Commissioner Shrader, I. Commissioner Savis, I. Commissioner West, I. Commissioner Helm, I.

Mr. Chair I motion passes 5-0, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you very much and thank you again, Jody. Gary, what do you have next? Thank you. Next is advisory board and commission appointments. Andrew, go ahead, please. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I have two advisory bodies in need of the board's attention. The first is the committee for community involvement, which recommends an incumbent be reappointed. According to the bylaws, current members may request reappoint and serve up to a total of two consecutive terms. The recommendation is as follows. Bill Merchant to a second term ending September of 2029. The board could select other candidates or require further recruitment. Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you, Andrew. Turning my colleagues. Is there chair? I move to uh uh appoint Bill Merchant to a second term. Second. Commissioner Savis has moved to appoint Bill Merchant to the community committee for community involvement. Commissioner Helma second that. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll? Commissioner West. I. Commissioner Shrader I. Commissioner Savis I. Commissioner Helm I. Mr. Chair I. Motion passes five to zero. Mr. Chair. All right. Clerk, we have a second advisory body, it looks like.

Yes, Mr. Chair. The second advisory body is the county budget committee, which currently has one opening due to an incumbent's resignation. Recruitment opened to the public in February of 2026 and closed in March of 2026. Six applications were received and one is recommended for appointment. The recommendation is as follows. Jeffrey Kaitton to a first term ending June of 2027. The board could select other candidates or require further recruitment. Mr. Thanks, Andrew. Uh, colleagues, is there a motion on this? Uh, I move to appoint Jeffrey Kaitton to the budget committee, and he has served on the budget committee before, so it'll be great to have him back. Second.

All right. Thank you, ladies. Uh, Commissioner Sher has moved to appoint Jeffrey Kaitton to the budget committee. Commissioner Helma seconded that. Any further discussion on this matter? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll? Commissioner West. I Commissioner Savis I Commissioner Helm I Commissioner Shrader I Mr. Chair I motion passes 5 to zero Mr. And Gary, what do we have next for us?

Thank you. Next is International City County Management Association dues for the county administrator. That is me. I'm seeking your approval to allow me to use county resources to pay for my annual membership dues in the cost is $1,200 for a one-year membership. It is budgeted in our office. It is does come from county general funds. Um, I'm asking you each year because I failed to include this in my employment contract. Therefore, because you're my supervisors, I'm asking your permission to use public dollars to pay for my membership dues. I find my membership in this association very valuable. It helps me to be a better county administrator. Um, I go to some of the conferences. I get a magazine. I have webinars that I can join for free as a member and I find it very, very valuable. So, I'm respectfully asking your permission, your approval to spend $1,200 of county budgeted county general funds on my annual dues, please. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Commissioners, questions or a motion? Any questions? Okay. I move to approve the MA dues for our county administrator. Second. Uh, Commissioner Trader has moved to approve the ICMA dues for the county administrator. Commissioner Savis has seconded that. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll? Commissioner Helm, I. Commissioner Shrader, I. Commissioner Savis, I. Commissioner West, I. Mr. Chair, I. Motion passes five to zero. Mr. Chair, congratulations, Gary.

Thank you, Commissioners. I really appreciate that very much. Thank you. Uh, next is review of your board business meeting agenda for this Thursday, April 23rd, 2026. April 23rd, 2026 is Take Your Child to Work Day across the United States. Clackmus County is allowing individual departments to participate if they choose. And I'd like to have at your business meeting, we'll have a quick presentation to recognize that day. And those employees that brought their children will bring them in the room to take a photo with you. Maybe at the dis they can sit in your chairs if you'd like. Uh but we'll have that presentation on Thursday. public communication, housing authority consent agenda, a presentation from the Association of Oregon Counties. The executive director, Gina Nickel, will be here and so she'll give a brief presentation and answer your questions for you at the meeting. You'll have three public hearings. First is a county code chapter amendment on the CPACE program, commercial property assessed clean energy program, a public hearing on road use county code change, and a public hearing on a purchase and sale agreement with Hoodland Fire District for that county-owned building. You'll have consent agenda for Clackamus County, the development agency, and Water Environment Services. So, a full agenda. If you have any questions on these items before Thursday, would you please let me know and I will answer it for you or have staff in the room to answer it for you on Thursday. Uh thank you. You've booked through this commissioners. Your last item is commissioner communications and you do have a policy session following issues. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Gary. All right. For communication, uh Commissioner Schrader. Yeah. Thank you so much, Chair. Uh it's great to be back and uh on the job again. I' I've missed all of you. I want to give a shout out to uh Commissioner Helm who helped me with the big dinner the other night uh for the um it was for the caring place to be there. I know it's a wonderful group of people and um good conversation, good food and uh you know again thank you for your help

and let's continue to support our charities here. Uh and and particular I wanted to give a shout out to the children's center. I've just heard from them again just checking in um because that is again another one of our uh initiatives that we worked with with abused children and that you've been a champion of that Craig for years and years and years and I did I'm going to tell you I had a wonderful time with my grandchildren. They're uh

I was gone for a while to visit them. They're twins, so they're at that that age when they're still little kids, but just kind of getting to the point where uh you know, they're really fun becoming young adults and they're fun to to be around. And one of the things that we did and um I wanted to to mention this is that we took a trip to Oxford and got a chance to really walk throughout the whole town. And uh as you know Oxford University is one of the oldest universities in you know in England. And uh we got to see the Boldley Library which is was really something that I have always wanted to do. And uh one little anecdote uh as part of the tour, you know, we saw a list of all the donors of people that have through the numerous years of Oxford and there various um you know, colleges that are all over, you know, there's there's a co a college and then there's a pub and then there's another college and a pub. It's kind of this this this whole big town with these different colleges under the umbrella of a university, which I finally realized. But anyway, um, one of the names on the board was, um, Kenneth Graham and the, uh, I was proud proud of my library self for this because he, did does anybody know the book that he wrote, you know, and I said, well, of every was looking at each other and I piped up and I said, well, of course, the wind in the Willows and Toad's Wild Ride. And he was he's so impressed that an American

which is sometimes like being a CL County Commissioner. Yeah, I know. In fact, I use that all the time to my mind. It's it's really that. But it was a marvelous uh marvelous time to have um time with my family and and uh I come back refreshed and ready to get back to work with my colleagues. So, great. Welcome back, Martha. And Commissioner Savis.

Yeah. Well, first of all, it's great that we're all here today. Um, and uh, so I can share with you to each of you the the same message, and that is that um, Commissioner Helm and I have been working um, on that um, CCSO finance workg group and just wanted to let you know that uh, things are going swimmingly. Um uh it seems like we have tremendous agreement on both uh county finance and CCSO finance staff. We're making a lot of progress. We have members from labor there. We have uh two members of the budget committee who will be seen later this afternoon. Myself and Pisher Helm of course sitting there and the treasurer Brian Helm to validate some of the financial numbers um that we've got. So, uh, we're meeting again tomorrow, probably our last meeting, um, uh, for a while and, uh, hopefully I we believe and hopefully be able to hammer out a few more details. But, um, it has prompted me, by the way, to go back and look at a lot and listen to a lot of the, uh, budget meeting uh, budget meetings, not all of them, but I'm going back to 2018, for example, and 2019. Um, still got more to do, but um, I just want to be able to have a better context um, of how we message or talk about whether it's vacant positions or whether it's being fully funded or partially funded or whatever you want you want to say that. Uh, it's it takes a lot of careful context to make sure you frame it up uh, correctly. But it looks as though there have been vacant positions uh in CCSO for example for historically for a long time and we'll have more reporting on that pretty soon. But I think that um they haven't always been fully funded um from the as from the

aspect of of um the sheriff's levy in particular because the sheriff's levy uh uh has been re-calibrated to account for internal costs within CCSO and so technically because that didn't adequately collect enough money to pay for the services rendered. Um and similarly with the city contracts, there's been um some backfilling, if you will. So, in order to get the the levy fully funded, we need the support of the voters. So, I just want to just emphasize here um and maybe we should continually do this outside externally. I know Commissioner um West and I talked about it. we need to talk positively about with the voters that this is important and if we want to fully fund our sheriff's office, it's it's it's imperative that we pass this levy because that's that's the biggest hiccup um in in trying to get adequate funding for the sheriff's office.

Um lastly, uh what's come up quite a bit lately is also is short-term rentals. And we've been getting a lot of feedback. I appreciate that. We're going to be talking about that this afternoon, right? Yep. And uh but I I do want to say that I have um received um from some very legitimate STR operators and Craig, you met one of them

um at the TDC meeting one time and you really like the guy and I've been in communication with him. He's very anxious to come and help us or talk to us whether collectively or individually. Um Ryan Tigner is his name. He's really really sharp. He operates STRs in multiple states. um and he's got a lot of examples of working in other jurisdictions in other models. Um so I think we have a lot to to learn and um um I'm hoping we can take the next steps and we'd be talking about that this afternoon. But I just want to let you know I've been engaged um on both those levels uh uh almost almost every day for the last couple three weeks here. All right, that's all I have. All right, thank you Commissioner Commissioner West.

Well, thank you chair. Um, I totally agree with everything Commissioner Sas just said. The the levy is essential that we get it passed. Not only just get it passed, but we actually appropriately fund what we promise. Um, that didn't happen last time. The evidence is in. It's super clear that we overpromised and underdelled on that funding. And so that is we're feeling a pinch today. We're trying to write the ship on a number of budget decisions that were made previous to this board existing. And it's a tough decision. And I really appreciate the thoughtful input from budget committee members that are very closely connected in our from uh law enforcement, fire, and other first 10 responders that understand public budgets. They understand the challenges we face. They understand the need to be good stewards of public dollars while also demanding a fully funded um firstand responders and law enforcement. So, we're going to be going into that here shortly um at the end of the month. I think we're just now maybe starting to hear rumblings and get numbers as a board. We haven't seen anything yet. So, I know that budgets are being proposed. I haven't seen a thing. Uh so, I can't make a decision yet on anything, but we're going to be trying to make sure we write the ship and continue to be sustainable. The city of Portland reported this morning that there I think maybe our yesterday $170 million shortfall. That's basically our general fund in Clackamus County. and they're talking about real significant cut cuts to first-shand responders to police and fire that are alarming uh for the whole region. Um but we have a very good track record of being judicious and careful with our public dollars, operating in the black, making those tough decisions and not waiting to do it until they pile up on themselves. So, we're going to do big work here. Um you know, it's not lost on anybody on this board. It wasn't that many years ago where uh there was a giant miscalculation and budget shortfall and Commissioner Svice raised the alarm as he so often does because

he's so good with public budgets and said, "Hey, we're 10 million short. Turns out we're $13 million short at that time." And that board had other priorities and still continue to move forward. But these things compound over time. And I trust that this board will continue to do the good work that has done in the past. Require accountability. We're not afraid to put in the hours. I think we've already done that looking at the last session, but um we we we will make sure we get there and I think the county is in good hands and we have a very solid and well experienced budget committee. One other thing that like I've been harping on lately is uh the culture of the county. Uh this came up today. Um I gave everybody this book. It's called Give Them the Pickle. Many of you here in watching or that live in Clackamus County, Portland area, you guys had your birthday parties or your children had their birthday parties at um Frell's ice cream parlor. It was um this nostalgic turn of the century fun ice cream parlor where you could also grab a meal and have dinner with your family. It was a fantastic place that used the first one was opened here in Portland. kind of a legacy business here on the west coast that became famous for good reasons and known for its good customer service. And um he tells a story about give them the pickle. And basically what that means is we want to make sure that we can make our customer feel valuable and remind them that they're the boss when we're able to make sure that we appreciate them. And the truth is is that our taxpayers and constituents, they are the boss. um this is their county. You know, we all have heard growing up, you know, a government for the people, by the people, right? So, those people are our taxpayers and they pay real good money to be able to make sure that their local government is operating in a way that's effective and efficient and ethical and shows good leaderships and problem solves and fills the potholes and all those things that impact our everyday

lives. And um I want us to have a culture in Clackamus County where we remind the taxpayer that they're the boss. like and you know we're not a we're not it's not totally the same as a small business owner and we have two of them here on the dis with commissioner helman service but we want to be known as as the as the government entity that they appreciate working with and they walk away feeling super valued and that they don't mind coming back and they don't mind testifying in front of us and sharing their concerns because they're going to be treated respectfully that they know the permitting process is the smoothest and easiest in the region that we have a reputation of finding the little things to give them and give them the pickle. And so, um, I think that that would be such a novel experience for anybody to say about any government, but I think Clackamus County, if that was our reputation, how powerful that would be, that we're responsive and careful and thoughtful and at the end of the day, we do it cheerfully and we u make sure that they feel valued. And so as a county commissioner, I hope I was able to help create a culture here and continue to create a culture here that does that. And I and I'll kind of close with this because at the end of the day, our public service is all temporary. The voters may choose to move us forward and to continue to serve or they may not. I hope to continue to serve another four years as your county commissioner. But what's most important to me is that the voters look at Ben or they look at commissioner's office or any of us and they say, "You know what? The county is better off than when they found it." Whenever we turn the lights out in our office and we move on to the next thing life has for us, I hope to God they say, "We left the county better than when we found it." That's it. That's good public service. Um, that's solving real problems. That's giving your constituent the pickle in a way that makes them feel like they're the boss. So I hope that we can have that culture here in Clacamus.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Hill. Yeah, I want to mention Martha, thank you for donating the dinner um at the Carrying Place auction um last October um it was kind of a cute story because I got into a bidding war with someone um who I didn't know. Yeah. uh behind then on the table behind me. And I kept raising my paddle and raising my paddle and it was getting rather high. I'm not sure how much one of your dinners has gone for, but it's one of the

I think it might be one of the highest. Anyway, the the gal behind me, I turned around at one point. I said, "How bad do you want it?" And she goes, "Hm." I go, "Cuz I've had her food and it is really good." So she raises her paddle like one last time. And so at the end she came over and and asked me to come to dinner with my my date as well. So um we attended on on uh Sunday at your house. So it was it was a lovely evening. They invited they in turn invited their friends. Very lovely group of people. It was it was fun. I love meeting new people and learning about

what they do and how they give back to the community. This was a very Yeah, these this is a very nice group of people that really believe wholeheartedly in giving back to their community. So very cool. Um, Chair Roberts and I went to DC last week. It was a whirlwind 48 hours in DC. Um, I think it was a very successful trip. I felt um it uh we we covered really just basically three things. It was the Sunrise Corridor, the build grant, um the uh West Interceptor uh monies, and then the BLM land issue that we're still in conversation with. Um, I do want to say there's people out there I know you go, it's what a waste of taxpayer dollars. Why would you fly to DC when you can do it by Zoom? And to me, when you're asking for many millions of dollars from the federal government, you should do it in person, you know, and shake their hands and look them in the eye and explain your reasoning and and this is it's not a Zoom meeting. There's a lot of Zoom meetings I do attend all day long, but um this is a time where I think we're we're developing relationships with some of our newer house members and uh and our other congressional leaders. So um I'll let you expand on that a little bit more. Um and then uh I attended the children's center gala on Friday evening, which is also one of those organizations near and dear to my heart who do such good work in Clakamus County. So, um, it was it was a lovely event and, uh, yeah, that was that was it was a busy week. It was a busy week.

So, back to you, chair.

All right. Just a couple quick comments. And first of all, it was um, it was a pleasure to go to DC and let me just say it it wasn't a cakewalk. We were up early. We were basically uh, meeting with our lobbyists back there. And I just have to say why it is so important that the county also has the lobbyist summit strategies and also a shout out to Trent Trent Wilson. Uh there was a ton of preparation before we went to DC. We had excellent talking points. We also wanted to take the time to thank our leaders in DC for the funding that we've gotten. So it was a chance to say thank you. Also to talk also we talked about the recovery campus. We also went to BL met with leaders at BLM about ONC funding and thank you Commissioner West. I know you've been working on that and um and so it was uh definitely uh I felt beneficial as for the county that we were able to kind of uh highlight um our successes where we were really needed funding that was critical for the entire county and uh it was uh um that busy and rewarding. And it was again, thank you. Commissioner Helm always has great questions and uh was able to really um uh emphasize the need for the funding for the county in a very articulate way. So that was really uh great to partner with you on that trip. So we have uh we're going to shift to um uh talk about another topic. So I kind of want to wrap it up here so we can move on. So I'm going to go ahead and conclude the administrative issues and updates. will now proceed directly to our first policy session. So I in order to do that I need to recess as a board of county commissioners convene as the North Clackmus parks and rest rec district board of directors and I'm going to turn to Gary. Thank you chair. This is your first policy session of the day. You are

meeting as the North Clackamus Parks and Recreation District Board of Directors. This is briefing on the North Clackamus Parks and Recreation District funding strategies and proposed polling. Kiaelli, the director of NCPRD, and Nathan Henry from the Trust for Public Land will present. This is meant to be anformational update, but we do want to seek your general guidance on next steps. Kia, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Gary. Good morning, Chair Roberts and directors. My name is Kia Sy. I'm the NCPRD district director. I'm here today with Nathan Henry and Andrew Demullen from the Trust for Public Land. Andrew is joining remotely this morning. Mr. Henry is the Western Conservation Finance Director for the Trust for Public Land and Mr. De Mullen is the research director. Thank you for this opportunity to provide anformational update on the first phase of the technical assistance work being led by the Trust for Public Land. Last October, the board authorized staff to hire consultant services to conduct research on the district funding structure to improve the long-term financial sustainability and stability of the district. In January, the board approved a letter to the uh trust for public land requesting technical assistance um that would result in a comprehensive funding strategy for the district. This work is being provided by the trust for public land free of charge. This work includes three phases. Phase one is the preparation of the public finance feasibility study, which we're here to talk with you today about. Phase two is a community preference assessment, essentially polling. And if the polling indicates that the community is supportive of a funding um measure, then phase three would be implementation of a ballot measure. And that would include the specific purpose of the funds, the duration of the measure, the timing of the vote, the ballot language, and any accountability pro protocol. So that might include something like an oversight committee. Before you today, as I mentioned earlier, is the phase one deliverable, the public finance feasibility study. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of public funding options to support existing NCPRD district

programs. It explores the legal and political processes for implementation and evaluates various alternatives considering ballot measure history, constitutional and statutory limitations and fiscal conditions and forecasts. The context of this study, which we've talked a lot about in the past, is that of the five park and recreation districts in the state of Oregon, NCPRD has the lowest tax rate of 54 cents per 1,000 of assessed value. With this low permanent tax rate that has not increased since 1990 when the district was formed, expenses are increasing faster than the revenues, largely due to inflation. NCPRD has never passed a levy or a planned bond measure. Without additional operational funding, NCPRD will be required to make ongoing budget cuts year-over-year. And right now, we are forecasting a fiscal cliff in fiscal year 203132. And when we reach that cliff, we expect to need to make more significant cuts which may result in things like facility closures or a closure of park amenities. Now I'll pass the presentation to Mr. Henry and Mr. Deullan to summarize the findings of the feasibility study and next steps.

Thank you, Director Sully. Uh so TPL's feasibility report analyzes three potential finance options for NCPRD to consider. A local option levy, general obligation bonds, and an increase to the permanent tax rate of the district. Among these three options, the local option levy most directly meets the current financial challenges faced by the district by providing funding that can be used to support park operations. going to take a just a moment to sort of walk through the three options that we examined. Uh first of all, the local option local option levies while local option levies extend for only 5 years, they present an efficient and equitable mechanism for raising significant revenue for local governments. Because a local option levy is only in place for a prescribed period of time and approved by voters for a specific use. And because auditing and reporting is required to demonstrate compliance with the commitments made to voters, there is a high degree of accountability inherent in this mechanism. Importantly, revenue generated by a levy can ensure clean and safe parks by supporting essential maintenance while also providing operational funding for things like recreational classes and events that range from basketball programs uh to youth swim lessons uh for all ages as well as free activities throughout the district uh like movies and concert nights in the parks. A second option that we looked at, general obligation bonds, uh is uh can only be used for capital projects and cannot be used for operations. Based on our conversations with NCPRD staff, funding for operations, not capital improvements, is the district's highest priority right now. While it may make sense to consider bond me a bond measure at a later date, this mechanism is not well aligned with

NCPRD's current needs in our assessment. The third option we looked at is an increase in the uh in the permanent tax rate for the district, which director Sully noted was uh at 54 cents and has never been increased. Um, this would also provide funding for operations, but it would require reforming the district and the election of a new board of directors. It would be a much more complicated and confusing process with multiple steps both for the district and for voters and also would require voters to support an open-ended rather than a timelimited tax increase. An increase of the permanent tax rate of this nature was attempted by NCPRD in November 2014 and it failed to pass. For this reason, there is a greater risk uh in see in seeking a measure that seeks a permanent increase in the tax rate. Um the next step of TPL's process is to assess community preferences. Based on our review of the feasibility study, we would recommend conducting a survey gauging support for a five-year local option levy. This survey would allow us to an opportunity to assess voter attitudes towards a modest 5-year levy, develop potential ballot language, and evaluate community priorities. As director Sy noted earlier, this survey will be conducted by TPL without charge to the district. and turn things back to you.

So, thank you, Mr. Henry. I want to reiterate our appreciation for TPL's support of this process. Their ballot measure success rate of over 80% is a testament to their commitment to districts like ours to find viable funding solutions, but also their commitment to the voters to listen to them and act appropriately. staff will communicate the findings of the survey to board members and will also solicit feedback from the NCPRD district advisory committee. Um we expect to provide this feedback to you in June. And um and really this is to help the board with their decision making as to whether to move forward with phase three of the TPL work developing ballot language. This concludes my staff report and we're happy to take any questions. All right. Uh, we have some questions. Go ahead, Commissioner Savis.

Yeah, just more of a comment. Um, I appreciate meeting you and the January meeting we had where we kind of authorized you or greenlighted you to do this this uh this uh project and uh appreciate uh the fact that it's been accepted and you're covering the cost for this, which is awesome. And you have expertise in just this area of public service, uh, parks and so forth. So I, you know, I I I couldn't be actually more excited, frankly, that we got the right people for the right job. And again, your experience level with this. Um, and so, um, I, your conclusion and your report, um, I think makes a lot of sense with me and resonates with me

and, um, I I just, uh, would just like to see you continue to do the work as you prescribe. Um, you're the experts at this. And, um, that's really all I have to say other than a big thank you. Thank you very much. questions. I had a couple questions. Um, one of the questions I had had to do with uh, you talked about in 2014 or right 2014 failed and I always like to look back and kind of say, hey, you know, what didn't go well or what was the perception at that time and maybe you could talk just a little bit about that. I had another question after that maybe.

Sure. Uh so we uh were involved in the 2014 measure and there was uh significant polling done before that effort uh as well. Um the polling actually for that um there were multiple polls done indicated that it would be a tough path to pass the measure. Um and it ended up uh failing with I think 46% of the vote. Um, one of the things that is complex about a permanent tax rate increase is when you put a a a a measure on the ballot, you have very limited real estate, so to speak, on uh your ballot question and your summary talking about what the measure does. That's really the most important piece of information that voters see when they go into the into the voting. Well, I guess in in Oregon when they fill out their ballots in the mail, um the um uh and and so when you are doing a complex process like reorganiz reorganizing the district where you have to explain what you're doing, uh you also are adding numerous additional offices to the ballot. It's just a much more complex process. You're running out of space. You're spending so much kind of energy and effort and space and words explaining what the permanent increase does and reorganizing the district that you have a lot less opportunity to talk about what the measure actually does, which is ensuring safe, clean parks and and a host of other positive attributes to the to the measure. Um, so in my in my opinion, I think that played a role in in why the um in the the 2014 measure likely failed.

Go ahead,

Chair Roberts. If I may, thank you for that question. I think that's a really important question for us to answer today. So, um, just to add to Mr. Henry's response is that um what he's talking about with the complexity, we would need to basically reform the district with a higher tax rate. We would also need to ask the voters to elect a new board of directors because all of you sit as Clackamus County Commissioners and the NCPD board of directors. So if we were to reform the district and change the governance um effectively there would be a whole slate of of directors that would need to be elected as well. So that contributes to the complexity.

And um my second question was um had to do with polling and the timing of it. And I know it's a very tough economic time right now and kind of in your professional experience. Um when would you recommend that and kind of trying to understand uh your thoughts on that?

It's always u it's always a tough thing to to figure out. Um one of the things that we would want to make sure is the poll is most importantly there to guide your decision-m process. So the most important consideration is just to make sure that we're polling with enough time for you to be able to digest the results and then decide on a course of action because as director Sy noted there is a third phase to this which is actually developing the the ballot language, developing the measure that you're putting onto the ballot. Um, so we would recommend not waiting too long, uh, because we want to make sure that there's sufficient time for that process to to occur. Um, so it doesn't necessarily mean we have to go in today, but um, I would recommend an expeditious timeline just because time is really the one asset we have that is inflexible in this process. And

see if you have anything to add to that. I think the only minor detail I would add is um well perhaps it's it's um a major detail in in my line of work is community engagement. So um once we begin this polling work and get some initial results, we can share those initial results of course with all of you, but also um as importantly our NCPD district advisory committee. We'd really like to share those those polling highlights with them and gather their feedback because they've been important adviserss to all of you as board of directors. So, um we want to make sure that we have enough time to process this with the community. And so, if we do the polling work now, we have a good portion of the summer to do that engagement work. I'm already out in the community um making sure that those individuals that live in the district are really aware of the current state of our finances. So, it's really an education and awareness campaign, but for my from my perspective, it's also a really important time for me to um understand the the needs and wants in the community in a really important way. As you know, we completed the system plan last fall. Um, this was our first 20-year plan since 2004, and that really clearly defined the needs and wants of the community. But I think it's important for me as director to go out and really face toface talk with community members. So, again, um, making sure that we're staying um, on our timeline, but engaging the community thoroughly is a high priority.

All right. And just to kind of before Commissioner West has a question, I just wanted to uh extend a personal thanks to you, Kia, for really uh your leadership. Uh you've done an incredible job helping bring me up to speed about the concerns, the financial concerns that you have and managing really I what I believe is really kind of a complex uh system. And with when you look at this, it hasn't been changed since 1990. I mean, that's pretty telling. Uh, as we all know, costs have just increased dramatically. So, uh, just a big thanks to you for all your hard work and, uh, sure appreciate it. Commissioner West has a question. Go ahead, Commissioner.

Uh, thank you, Sher. Um, thank you for such a mindful approach to this. I mean, really being careful and judicious and making sure that um we're we're finding that right balance between the times in which we live and where people are at, but also making sure we're being good stewards of the parks and the assets and the resources that serve so many people here in Clackamus County. Grover, I'm looking at you, man. We might have to door knock together to tell people to to support this funding structure. Um but it might be all hands on deck. It's up to us to make that case and to break through a lot of the noise. I know we have a lot of concern with the police levy that is going to be on the May ballot which I believe all five of us have publicly supported.

But it's a tough time with other tax considerations and the perception rightfully so by the public because they expect us to be good stewards of these public dollars and resources. And all too often in the news, we are seeing where that hasn't been the case and we always have to strive to do better. Um, so I I'm I I'm impressed with the report. I'm very impressed with the work that you've done and I think it's it is really important information to help us make a a quality decision. Um, it is true it hasn't been really addressed since the voters well it was addressed and they said no at that time but that was a while ago also. But it's been this rape. God, I was I think in junior high.

You're gonna do that again, aren't you? Yeah. Sorry. So, it's been a long time. I mean

I mean I think we were still doing CDs in the 90s, right? Like I I look back like um hairstyles were much different back in the 90s. Uh um so we in a different millennia in the '9s. So I uh uh I I I do support this. I want to you I here in the report I talked about how 20% looks like it had pretty good public support but then we 51 to double that. Is it I mean it's the majority but that's pretty tight. Um, are we looking I'm asking this question this way because I want to make sure that we are not overpromising and underdelivering because we've seen that with the police levy overpromised didn't fund it appropriately the formula was broken it was for political reasons and now down the line we pay we we suffer for that I just want to be honest with the voters that hey if you at this rate this is what you can expect and we will maint and that expectation you can count on it. I want the voters to know we they can count on what we're going to deliver. We've already done a lot with a little, but I want to make sure that that's how we approach this. So, if we say we can double it, that they know what what they're going to get versus what they're not going to get. So, that that I I I think that that's been a pretty consistent voice from this board when we look for something like this. So, those are kind of my thoughts, but I I want to and my other concern is I'm concerned that some elected officials specifically out of the city of Milwaukee may oppose this for ridiculous reasons. Um, we already had a fail once. Like, it's there's tension there politically and it's not because it's what's best for the parks district. It's just politics and feelings. Um, and so do you guys when you advise going out for a bond and and communicating that stronger political opposition from uh

other electeds within the district like from the city of Milwaukee, are we accounting for some of that within our messaging? And then how do you recommend we maybe navigate those waters? Well, our polling will show whether there is reticence among voters in Milwaukee for uh proceeding to a measure. Um, which I think given um that public statements have been made will sort of, you know, if if the if the potential opposition from some political figures in Milwaukee is is actually catching on with voters, that will be somewhat evident in our survey. We'll be able to see it.

Yeah. um because there would be a dramatically lower support for the measure in in Milwaukee. Um so the polling will provide uh something of an answer to that question. I I do believe. Um anything you'd like to add to that?

Thank you for that question, Director West. Um so just adding to Mr. Henry's response, I think that the polling will actually be really insightful and will really guide us. uh we need to listen to the voters um as to whether or not we go to phase three, the next step for sure. Um from my perspective, um I would hope that um the uh that um the community will really look to the system plan needs and wants and um and I know today I can tell you with certainty that we will not be able to deliver on those needs and wants with a 1990 tax rate. That is the lowest of the major park and wreck districts in the state at 54 cents per thousand of assessed value. We just can't community really wants and needs these things from a park and recreation district. So I am hoping that we will all uh support that direction. Now again, I want to make sure that we proceed carefully because this is a challenging time financially for a lot of families and um we keep our fees as we've talked with you about before uh at a very competitive level because we don't want to out basically price our our community out of the market. So um so we think we're delivering on a product and a service that is very um coste effective. Again, we hope that um the community will rally around that initiative and we'll leave aside some of the other um concerns um and um political differences because again um NCPD provides essential park and recreation for the community and um

um and I hope that politics won't prevail. Yeah, I I think there's clear evidence also that safe livable communities and that safety piece is super tied to opportunities within parks, districts, and libraries and and community centers. Um it's it's about literal community vibrancy and giving like and community keeps people from falling into making decisions that not only harms themselves but can harm the community. So, we're taking care of our neighbor by providing these services and we can't do it at 1990 levels. I'm just a little cautious and concerned. We have to think about it because there's already public opposition from uh elected officials out of Milwaukee to the police levy that's on the ballot right now during this sentiment and it would be catastrophic to all of Class Clackman's County and the region if the police levy doesn't pass. Um and so sometimes we have to look beyond politics and talk about people and that what that impact is and and and just govern well. And so that's part of my concern. And I've already heard rumblings from that same cohort that is looking to potentially be oppositional or hang that over our head as a threat. Um, but what we're doing is we're we're just not serving people at that point. And so I I I'm trying to I want to be able to navigate through that that mist or that that mor if if if it does kind of rear up. And that's my part of my concern. It could be a real barrier is why I bring it up.

Thank you. All right, Commissioner Savis.

Yeah, I just wanted just to reinforce um the comments made earlier uh with regard to the complication of the 2014 measure which included the governance change. Um there's members like myself and even in the room that were there at the time and voted for that and what we heard overwhelmingly was confusion, right? Because there's so many different moving pieces. What does this mean? Oh, I'm pointing out a change of governance and yet and also a tax rate. So it was too much and I think we learned a lot from that and you know the polling at the time as as as mentioned uh was not it was pretty we knew it was going to be a challenge and um it turned out again uh to be too complex and weren't able to get it over the hump. So I I think the approach I heard here today I think is the right one and I think the polling will definitely tease out where this voter sentiment is and and their tolerance to any increases and and we'll get a realistic look of of what uh what people think and measure. So I I I do want to say that you know the you know the momentum we currently have with the district um is pretty positive. There's a lot of positive energy out there right now that we need to capitalize on. It may not be there two years from now. We need to do this on an even numbered year, I believe. Is that correct? Or

No, no, you could actually do a ballot measure in in an odd year as well. Okay. And um and the what was the other one? Oh, yeah. As far as to what Commissioner West um concerns are with uh the neighboring jurisdiction, I I I really think that um there's more upside to having this pass for for the city of Milwaukee and its residents than there is downside. And I think that if we can work together closely to rationalize this and work um in concert with one another um as as reasonable people, I think hopefully uh reasonable minds will prevail and understand whether it's this or it's public safety, whatever it is that

um if you look at the math, just look at the math that you know the truth is there. um you know it's uh you know concerns about subsidies or one way or another. I think it'll prove to show that um the city of Milwaukee will actually benefit from this more so than um than the others. Okay. All right. Gary, you had a comment, I think. Yes. Thank you. Back to polling. We all agree polling is a critical data point for the board and the public to make a decision. However, when is the right timing, especially with a May election coming up in Oregon, when do you anticipate actually doing this polling? Have you figured that out yet?

We are in the process of of actually writing the questions right now. Um, so we are setting to be prepared to to field the survey as as early as end of this week or early next week if we if we think that's the best time to do it. Um, again, uh, I would recommend, you know, making sure that there is enough time on the back end to do all of the decision- making. Um, does that necessarily mean we need to go in to the field this Friday or Monday? Not necessarily. But we would definitely recommend not punting this for for too long. uh just because again um

information we've we've found in the past that the when you sort of rush the process or any one phase of the process um that is when um you know the the the process could get a little more complicated. Um and so um we've actually been working on the poll questions for for quite some time uh in anticipation so we have the flexibility to go in sooner rather than later. Um, so we would recommend um not waiting too long um in order to to to get these results in everybody's hands. So really the next two weeks. Yes.

Okay. Obviously looking to your professional judgment. It's just a matter of timing because we don't want the results to be skewed with what's going on in the world with an election coming up in Oregon. So you're you're the expert on the when the right time is while understanding we want to plan ahead for a potential ballot issue. And then commissioners obviously you're the decision makers not me. I really want to echo what Chair Roberts said for KIA. Thank you for having the leadership and foresight to look ahead rather than coming to the board 5 years from now saying oopsie we're out of we're out of money. Uh so this is a great time to consider this. Commissioners, as you know, if the voters were if you were to put this on the ballot this year, it doesn't implement till the following year. So really, you have about three years to make a decision, not five

for time for the property tax the following year to be collected should the voters approve such a measure. So time is running out. Thank you for reviewing this now. And as you know, commissioners, directors, uh you either raise fees or you cut services. It's pretty black and white, one of the two. And this is an option for you to consider. the voters can to consider uh either doing a levy or a total tax base change or cut facil cut how the district does services. So thank you chair for allowing me to ask that.

Yeah, just one followup Gary. I know that you talked about the governance structure and kind of that how that's complicated, but I according to um Gary and others who've kind of educated me, we're kind of a unique county that that structure is still under the county. I I do think it's important uh perhaps in the polling to really assess what the public's perception is. Uh would they rather perceive it um handled outside of the structure of the county like others? Um even though we might not be able to go out for that um that might be a direction we want to head. I know that uh I was kind of surprised when I heard that uh we're kind of unique in that area. Um, and I did just kind of for the public's edification kind of also want to highlight Ben's uh tax rate is $146. Um, again, North Clammus Parks is 54. Willina is $21. Shahalum is 91. And it just kind of gives you really the drastic difference in where we're at. And then I think the other thing is um I've taken more time, I'll be honest with you, I've probably checked out parks more in the last year than I have in my entire life. And I will just say what is kind of energizing is seeing young families with children in the parks utilizing them. Um it uh you can really see that they do take advantage of it and and the importance of it in our community. So, uh, I've been visiting him more because he and, um, I also have my colleague down here, Commissioner West, has another comment or question. Just like a super quick question about polling. There's such like kind of a it's coming maybe coming to a fever pitch. It's really bubbling up this kind of anti-ax sentiment, I think, across political lines in Oregon. I think we could just see that in the news. I mean, it's kind of obvious. We can see with our own eyes. and then good

things where we need to do good stewardship that we need to update things. It's it's not the same thing gets caught up in this, right? Uh we right now have the $4 billion transportation tax on the May ballot too and across party lines. It's not popular. We know that, right? And so then I look at these other things where we're just doing good local work that need to be maintained and move forward. They can get caught up in this. We look at the last election cycle. We saw things fail in school boards and in special districts we never thought would or be very very closer than they ever were because there's a sentiment. So getting to my question around polling, can we test that a little bit too? Just the appetite of where these individuals are without specifically like talking about this, but really getting a sense of like is the electorate even open to having this conversation right now? And if we did, do we does it help guide that messaging where does polling say, "Hey, if we talk about it this way, we're probably going to get over the we're going to get there." But if we got to be careful to differentiate from over here, I don't know if that's also something we look at.

Yeah. So, the polling will be structured in such a way that I mean the So, we're we're actually going to test the proposed ballot language um which will bake in a a certain level of a tax increase into the actual question. So that the answer to that question alone will be by far the single most revealing um revealing thing we'll get out of the poll. But then throughout the course of the poll, we're going to be giving voters more information as well. We're going to be asking them about their priorities. We're going to be um uh providing them with more information about the positive things that the measure will do. And we'll have a we'll have an ability to see how sentiment changes throughout the course of of voters getting more information. Um, and so I think that process, you know, the fact that it's not just a one question survey, but it's, you know, slowly giving voters more information, reassessing their views as they hear more, sort of simulating what would actually happen in the real world as as something is put on the ballot, as the district is giving people facts and information about the measure, um, as advocates are talking about it in in a in in the in the fall. Um so I think that will provide some insight into into exactly the question that you raised um whether there is a a a sort of a desire among voters to be willing to pay higher taxes for these important services.

And who are we pulling? Are we like likely voters in um offyear May primary and that's who we're talking to? Are we just like registered voters or how do we know we're talking to the right voters that are going to turn out? We will um we'll be talking to likely November 2026 voters. Okay. Um and so the pollsters um we actually have a bipartisan polling team. We have a a a pollster that's more uh conservative leaning and a pollster that's more progressive leaning um that are working together on this survey. And so they'll use an actual voter file um to to pull out the sample for the survey. And that file will be screened for likely voters. So, we'll have a pretty good idea that the voters will be likely to vote this fall. It'll also be a representative sample of the district u regionally. So, it'll be pulled appropriately from the the population of the district. Um, and the demographics will also line up with the known demographics of the district. A lot of that information is actually on the voter file.

One last question. Do we ever do focus groups in this process or is that something that would make sense? Uh, it could. Um, so what I always say is focus groups are or polling is very good at telling us what voters think. Focus groups are very good at telling why voters think it. Um, what I would likely suggest is um, you know, it it is possible we could do the poll and find that the appetite isn't there. Um, that would potentially be a good opportunity afterwards to conduct some focus groups, okay, to figure out what's driving that sentiment. Thank you. Commissioner Helm, go ahead, Kia.

Oh, thank you, Director Helm. Um, just to uh add to your the response for your question, Director West. I wanted just to make a point that um uh we definitely will have an opportunity to engage a broader range of stakeholders in June. We plan to hold a special district advisory committee meeting and invite a broader range of community stakeholders for a roundt discussion. So that could operate a little bit like a focus group too. But I just want to underscore the importance um of the point that uh Mr. Henry made about if we hear from voters that they don't have an appetite for a ballot measure this fall, then we will continue to have engagement with the community as to why, what, and maybe when again. Mhm.

Um and I also want to say um from a staff perspective that we are putting together a um millage rate increase that really is the most conservative amount that we think we can operate with to avoid that fiscal cliff but also deliver on some of those most popular needs and wants that were described in the system plan. So we're really trying to thread the needle if you will. We can't deliver on everything because everything that everyone needs and wants because we just know that this is a really fiscally difficult time for a lot of families. But again, um so we're we're running those numbers right now, but um doing so within the context that you described.

Thank you, K. All right. So, I was just going to ask um Nathan, the uh you it almost sounds like you're going to start the polling before the May primary, correct? That's likely. Yeah. And it's going to go through probably after the May primary as well. Um, potentially not. Usually it takes about a week to field a survey.

Okay. And so because you're a professional and you've done this before and I don't I don't know. I I oftentimes, this is a Diana thing, I don't trust polls a lot of times, right? We have good reason to not trust them. Um, in the past when you've pulled during kind of a um, I would say heated, you know, primary season, do you find that the the answers are different than they would be after? Uh, yeah, go ahead.

Not necessarily. Um because um I mean one thing to keep in mind is that when voters are actually considering this ballot question in in November, it's going to be a heated election period as well, right?

Um so um the other um uh the other thing that I think it's important to to just recognize is you know this is something that my my my boss Paul Abger often says is voters are actually really good at sort of deciding issues one-on-one. So, uh, when you know if they if somebody takes our poll, um, and they they might even be looking at their ballot for the May election, um, you know, those are different questions. And so, um, voters voters are generally pretty capable of, okay, this is what I feel about parks, but maybe I have a different opinion about transportation or about

the the candidate questions on the ballot. Okay, that that helps. And then I was going to say too, Kia, that um if you end up having a like a an open house, say versus meeting, we had a really good turnout for our open house up at the resort at the mountain. Um like there were over 100 people there. Um and just like an open house I I think sounds more friendly than a meeting, right? Meetings are we talk at you. Open house means we want to hear from you. I I think you'll have a really good I think you'll have a really good turnout and I think people do want to speak to this because everyone has very very firm feelings and um parks are really important to a lot of people just like libraries.

People love we love our parks. So yeah, you're doing good work. Thank you.

All right. Well, Nathan, thank you very much for all your hard work on this. We sure appreciate it. Uh thank you, Kia. And unless there's I hear anything else, we'll go ahead and move on. This has been information update only and uh again we'll uh now adjourn as the North Clackmus parks and recck district board of directors reconvenes the board of county commissioners. I turn to Gary. Do you have anything else? That is it for this morning session. All right. This is going to conclude our business meeting this morning. We'll begin this afternoon with a budget committee meeting at 1:30 and we'll conclude this meeting. Well, good afternoon every Whoops. Here we go. Good afternoon everyone and welcome uh to this budget committee meeting on April 21st, 2026. County Administrator Gary Schmidt, will you please call the role for us?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. And this is the Clackamus County Budget Committee, which includes the five county commissioners and five members of the public. Roll call. We'll start with Commissioners. Commissioner West here. Commissioner Shrader here. Commissioner Helm here. Commissioner Savis present. Chair Roberts here and the public members and welcome to the new member of the budget committee just appointed this morning. Mr. Jeff Kaitton welcome Mr. Kaitton. Roll call. Mr. Rhodess here. Mr. K here. Mr. Cernach here and Miss Rder is on her way and she's a final member of the committee. Back to you chair. All right. Thank you Gary. Would you introduce our first agenda item?

Yes. Thank you chair and I will walk through the agenda for you today and staff will come up as appropriate. First item is approval of the budget committee meeting minutes from your last meeting on February 10, 2026. The minutes were included in your packet. Seeking a motion to approve or if there are any edits to be made, would you please share those? I'll note I'm marked as absent. I did arrive about halfway through. I don't know if you want to update that or not. Yes, we will do that. Thank you. I'll second. Okay. Well, he was that was that was just an edit. Yes. Any other edits or changes to be made?

And if not, would someone make a motion including the edit, please? I move that we accept the edited minutes. Second. All right. Um, budget committee member Rhodess has moved to approve the budget committee meeting minutes for February 10th, 2026. Uh, Commissioner West has second of that motion. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, would you please call the poll? Commissioner Savis, hi. Commissioner Helm, hi. Commissioner West, I. Commissioner Shrader, I, Mr. Kaitton. I,

Mr. Rhodess. Hi, Mr. K. I, Mr. Cern, I, Mr. Chair I motion passes 9 to zero. Mr. Chair. All right, Gary. What is next? Thank you. Next is review and action on the compensation board for elected officials for fiscal year 2026 2027. Presenting is Jennifer Justice who is the chair of the compensation board for Clakamus County elected officials and Nina Monroe Smith who's a compensation and classification manager in our human resources department. So, welcome both and please go ahead.

Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners and budget committee members. My name is Nina Monroe Smith. As part of my current role as the county's classification and compensation manager, I am also the staff liaison to the compensation board. Also here presenting with me is Jennifer Justice, this year's compensation board chair. We are here today to present the compensation board for elected official officials recommendations for fiscal year 2026 and 27. This afternoon, we're going to provide you an overview of the board's role, the process followed this year, and the recommendations that resulted from that work. The compensation board is composed of community members who reside, work, and/or own property in Clackmus County. Per the OS that guides them, they must have professional experience in human resources and compensation management. The compensation board members this year are Jennifer Justice, who completed her first year of her first term, and Amy Smith, who completed her four-year term, her first term. The board was supported by staff support from Clackmus County Human Resources, Danielle Mâche, and Aaron Braymond, who collected data, did research, and analysis to support the board. I would also like to recognize Evelyn Miner Lawrence and Heather Patterson, the human resources director and deputy director who provided support. The compensation board for elected officials process is required by Oregon Revised Statute 204.112. This statute outlines the annual process

for county compensation boards and grants these boards the authority to review the compensation of elected officials and make recommendations to the county's budget committee. The OS itself provides general guidelines and considerations for how the compensation board is to determine its recommendations. This includes a review of comparable positions within the labor market and the OS states it can be in the public or private sector as well as internal alignment with individuals managed by those elected officials and with other appointed employees serving in positions with similar roles. All of these factors were reviewed and considered by the compensation board. The OS also details what factors could be considered. Things like staff size, budget size, scope, responsibility. The OS does not require or indicate as a factor consideration of how the position is funded. As a result, the compensation board does not steer their recommendations based on budget. Nor do they base these decisions on the person in the position, but the actual positions themselves. The statute also provides specific direction regarding the sheriff's position, stating that the sheriff's salary shall be fixed at an amount not less than any member of the sheriff's department. It is then the compensation board's responsibility to submit its recommendations to the county's budget committee for review and approval. That is why we are here today.

All right. So this is the year that we did the match analysis and considered all of our comparable jurisdictions. Um we consider things like budget and staff sizes, um the responsibilities of the position, the elected position requirements and other specifics related to each elected role. The labor market that we use includes the following jurisdictions. Clark, Dashuites, Lane, Marian, Multma, and Washington counties. Uh we also added Benton County this year. Uh the cities of Portland and Vancouver and Oregon Metro. Comparable roles within these jurisdictions were used to assess pay alignment. We also took the opportunity this year to look at other jurisdictions outside of what we typically review. And because of this, we found comparability with Benton County for one of our elected positions. So after we have the um comparables, we look at the compensation for those positions to determine the average market rate and base the recommendations off of that. This is important to ensure that the compensation paid to Clackamus County elected officials is able to attract and retain people with the expertise and skills to manage the areas that they're leading. Internal alignment was reviewed to see if a further adjustment would be warranted. Factors considered include the compression with employees in the department um the electeds lead as well as comparability with other elected positions that may perform similar work. For example, there's some crossover between the assessor and clerk positions. Therefore, the compensation board felt that it was important to maintain par between these two. This was also found in our Margaret comparables.

So based on these considerations um this is how we made the recommendations for each position. So the methodology um that we applied is first we recommended an adjustment where the elected officials adjusted base pay rate is below the market average by more than 2 and a.5%. Next, we recommended an equivalent cost of living adjustment that has been approved for nonrepresented county employees. So, the budgeted cola for this year is 2.7% and these recommendations were across the board for all elected positions. And lastly, we recommended an adjustment in consideration of internal alignment, including where an elected official salary is less than 5% above the highest paid employee in the department they lead.

All right. In terms of the recommendations as outlined in the full report that you received from the compensation board based on the compensation board's recommendation methodology, the recommendations include you'll see the list, but there's recommendations related to market. So recommendations were made if an elected official's position was greater than 2 and a half% below market average. The compensation board also decided this year to provide two options. So you will see that detailed as option A and option B. And these are specific to those market adjustments. Option A brings that position to that market average. It brings it to that. Option B brings the recommendation to 2 and a half% below the market if they were below. And that is why again you see option A which brings them to market and option B which brings them two and a half% below market. There was also a recommendation this year for an increase to the chair's add to pay and this is a recommendation to change it from 2 to 3%. The add to pay has been at 2% since implemented in 2013. In consideration of the additional responsibilities with the board chair p position, the compensation board again recommends the increase which is consistent with the recommendations they've made in the last two years for that chair position. You will also see across the board as Jennifer mentioned the recommendation of a 2.7% cola which again is equivalent to what is budgeted for the non-represented employees. There is also one recommendation of an

adjustment where there is less than a 5% difference between an elected and their second in command. In the written report, you will see that the compensation board this year decided to change that amount. It where pre in previous years it was 10% threshold for that compression. They've now revised that to 5%. compression is the reason for the additional half of a percentage increase recommendation for the sheriff and from there we will open it up to questions.

All right. Thank you. I think uh as we kind of look at this, I'm just throwing this out for discussion, perhaps look at um first considering the cost of living adjustment and um if there's a consensus on that, then maybe we move to the next. Just trying to get uh an idea of what folks think about that. Commissioner West.

Uh there's I mean there's a couple really large numbers on here. Real large. Um, I think a lot of us know we get into this in public service. We're not here for the paycheck. Lord knows for the hours that some of us work. It's not. Um, but you know, it fair compensation is appropriate. Um I look at like it would be helpful just not on these increases to also see the number where the current annual salary is on the screen to bring that additional I don't know if we have a slide that does that with these positions and what the current and what the adjustment would bring that annual salary to uh as like a total I'm sure it's in the back. We do. It's coming right there. Perfect.

Put my readers on. Um, can you just for for people watching at home and for speed can you can you quickly so option A would bring I'm just looking at um Brunson Rua sorry you're just the first one due to the alphabet I think assessors first. So just so we make sure we're looking at the chart correctly and then I will get to my question. Option A would bring in his this is the current is that what you're is 173 120 for the assessor and then this number these totals here are with the recommendation depending on option A or B. Correct.

Am I right? This is also kind of an allocart option. We can say yes to some and no to others. Yeah. Um when I look at Can I go to the sheriff? Is she on there? Where is she? Scroll down, Andrew. Please go scroll down to the sheriff. Currently, um, one of the highest paid employees in the entire county at almost two just just a hair under 250,000. And you, it looks like your recommendation would bring her to just just almost 258. Is that right? Correct. Including deferred compensation.

Including her deferred compensation. Right. I'm trying to just think about like the people that serve in the sheriff's office that are in those management positions. To me, a a captain. There's a very few under sheriffs. That's kind of unique. It's almost like a political appointed type position and under sheriff, but captains are very much the I think the leaders of the sheriff's office and many in many instances they run full departments and there's um they they they to me will also most likely have a resume to be a sheriff one day too if they choose to run. Um, the average salary for I think for a captain ranges between, I could be wrong, between like 100 and 152. And that's such a large difference between like where the sheriff already is. So, I'm looking at like some of her leadership and where they're at within their salary range and then like what this ask is. So, I'm having a hard time getting to increasing this salary further, even though this individual makes far more than much of their actual executive um staff. And this indivi the sheriff also um already makes some of the highest salaries in the entire county. So th that recommendation is based on the under sheriffs because they report directly to the sheriff. And so the compensation board uses that methodology to look at the highest paid person reporting directly to that position and makes a recommendation changing it from 10% last year to 5%.

Why don't we look at captains? Captains can be chiefs of of like Happy Valley, Wilsonville, Leight. So like they had these large leadership roles, run full teams in executive type positions at the captain uh captain Eevee, sorry to point, he ran the jails, the entire Clackman County jail. They really do run an executive like level, but there's such a difference between that executive level and the other the the the topend heavy part. I don't understand how that doesn't play into how we look at these salaries. Um, so the sheriff's office is or the sheriff's position is the only one where there's a statute that um defines the compensation and all that it says is that um the sheriff's salary shall be fixed at an amount not less than that of any member of the sheriff's department. Okay.

Um so so that's different from the 5% that the compensation board is recommending. Um, but there is a statutory requirement there that we we would have to that's why you look at the under sheriff is because of the statutory requirement and not it's not necessarily applicable to like a captain level. Correct. Thank you. That's that's good information. Okay, that's all my questions.

All right, Gary, go ahead. Of Thank you, chair. I always have an opinion I like to share for your consideration and I thank Jennifer and the committee for their incredible work they do every year and I really respect that. I would suggest to you that you do this at in sections because there's a lot of moving pieces here. So instead of a a one motion to approve it all, do it in sections is my advice. I would say the cost of living, you should all electeds get what every other county employee gets, which will be 2.7% for the upcoming fiscal year. Uh beyond that, it's up to you. There's an option A, there's an option B. Uh my recommendation is that the clerk and the justice of the peace are way below market. And as Jennifer said, it'll be hard. Those both those functions of those two offices are critical components of the county service delivery. And it's important that those people feel they're compensated enough to do the job effectively. Yes, they're elected officials, but we want quality people to run for these offices and serve in those positions. I encourage you to consider that, please. Uh but beyond that, I think that's probably all I'd recommend. So, I would say dispense with the cola first and then my advice is go through one at a time. Either you'll make a motion or you won't. Thank you.

All right. So, I would ask if there's uh interest in a making a motion on that. Uh Cola.

Okay. Anyone can make that including public members even just to discuss it for discussion purposes. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the colo cola uh amounts for the elected officials. And is there a second? I'll second that. All right. Uh Commissioner uh Kaitton has moved to approve the recommended 2.7 cost of living adjustment increase for all positions. Uh Commissioner K is second of that. Any further discussion? Kenny Francis, I'm sorry I didn't see you there, Mr. It just went up. So,

Mr. Cernett, go ahead.

Um, I I was just uh wanting to put out that I know we've had uh budget constraints the last several years and so I I do want to at least consider the the possibility of a reduced or no cola this year for elected officials. Um, I don't know what everybody else's thoughts are on that, but I I I feel like these are the leaders of the county and so if the whole county as a whole is feeling pressure that we should have a conversation about uh asking them to to kind of lead from the front on that. So, I just was hoping maybe some people would have thoughts on that. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Helm. Um, I would agree with uh Mr. Cernach. Um, we keep talking about the fiscal cliff. We keep talking about tightening our belts. We keep talking about lack of funds, lack of revenue. And if there was ever a time to show the people that we really mean what we say. Um, I I I to me, this is just me, I think we are paid handsomely. And um when I had a business, I was the lowest paid employee on the roster. So when you add in how many hours you work, like you mentioned, Commissioner West. Um you lead by example and it's it's I I can't get on board with the 2.7. I don't know if there's a number in there that I can get on board with, but I'm I'm really reluctant and I think our citizens look to us to um make wise budgeting decisions. So, I may be the only no, but that's okay.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner West.

Um, ju just I'm totally in agreement. I also want to bring some perspective that the board of county commissioners and the administrative offices have already made very drastic cuts and are doing a lot and a lot less than our neighboring counties and counterparts. Um, we have we share staff. We don't have five designated staff. Um we um where Mulma County, Washington County, the staff and the support to the county commissioners is far more than what we have in Clackamus County. Look at the city of Portland, a comparable position maybe as a as a city counselor. They each get like five staff at district office, new six figure salaries times 12, right? So we haven't done that in Clackamus County. We have found ways to continue to do the work with a lot less. Um, with that said though, I am absolutely advocating for not giving me a 2.7% raise increase or cola this year. I'm completely fine with that because it's the public's money and I I think that I am um support the notion that, you know, shared sacrifice and I'm willing to be a team player in any capacity that I can to make sure that we have a vibrant and financially stable or even to make the the gesture and financially stable county moving forward that we're respecting public dollars. were good stewards of public dollars. I myself am completely open and would advocate to not give me a 2.7% raise. I don't know if most of my voters got a 2.7% raise this year and it's their money that's giving me the raise.

Um they're the boss. Uh and so I don't know if they're comfortable with me just automatically getting a 2.7% raise. I don't know if I'm always working hard. I'm always working more than 40 hours a week, but I don't know if I worked any harder than last time that made it extra special to give me that 2.7. So, I'd advocate to not get it. Um, and that's just for me. I'll speak for myself. I don't feel comfortable always speaking for everyone else's salaries, but that's that's my that's that's that's where I sit today. But with that said, we do this and continue to do more with less in the administrator's office because this is our value system.

Um, we don't need to necessarily champion that and we don't necessarily have the most robust staff support and all these other bells and whistles that other entities like ours have, but it's our value system. And so that's where I will fall on this issue. I will not be supporting a raise for me as a county commissioner to get an additional 2.7%. All right, Commissioner Savis, are you I'm sorry. I'm done. Thank you. Savage.

Well, for those of you who know me for a while, um this has always been a challenge for me and I've been pretty consistent um in my position on this, which is similar to my um previous colleagues comments. Um, I do want to first of all thank the compensation board uh for your work and this is always an awkward position for all of us knowing and staff knowing that you're doing what you do and and and everything you've done is right. I I don't question your your calculations. Um, and I it's something I noticed when I g got into the private sector way back in uh in 2000, the year 2000 on on an elected board um of the water board and I realized that as the districts were comparing doing their comparisons um they were trying to outdo one another and and the wages just went up and up and up and up and granted I mean costs are going up and I think that's what colas are all about. This is not about we're not talking about anything other than cola right now. But the other thing I also found too is that um in this position um I I think sometimes people run for this position for the money versus for other than maybe some of the the principles of the work um and so forth. So, I always think that, you know, gez, if we were to, and I'm not suggesting we to cut our pay in half, but if there was a substantial reduction in our pay, you know, would there be, you know, less people? And I and other people, the other side of the argument is, well, geez, if you don't if there's not enough pay, you're not going to get good people to run for office. So, you have those competing arguments and Commissioner Schrader and I um have um she's been here the whole time when this has come up.

Oh, yeah. Yep. So, I I've always been I don't I early on I jumped in and I try to make a convincing argument to to not do this. Um, but I've kind of laid back a little bit. But I I am going to do what I always do every year and that's speak up speak to the situation and and again knowing that you know we got this thing on our dis I don't know if our budget committee members saw that but we're according to this we're 4.9 million um negative right now and in the packet today there's no forecast. So, I'm reluctant really uh to know how this is resolved and how it sounds like the 30-year forecast is showing a lot more years in the red. Uh I I just can't justify doing anything by uh to increase our cost. So, I'll be a no. Um and I respect anyone else's opinion on that. That's fine. Um and I I don't want to put any of my other colleagues elect other appointed members of this budget committee in an awkward position either. So, I apologize. All right,

Mr. Kaitton has his hand raised. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Would I be able to make a an adjusted suggestion then, or are we still going to have the the vote on a current the current proposal versus me being allowed to? Well, I think um at least given it a chance to get make sure everybody's had a chance to input on this. And um and then at this point, I have a motion, a second, so it needs to go to a vote. We'll go to a vote, but because you're the main motioner, you could amend your own motion if you choose to do that. I was going to amend to say um uh vote to approve the colo for the elects other than the county commissioners at this time.

Would that be a possible vote? You can do that for the assessor, the clerk, district attorney, justice peace, sheriff, and treasurer to vote for the colo for those elects and not for the commissioners at this time. Okay. And whoever made the second, do you agree with that? Amended. Amendment. Yes. K. Okay. So that is allowable. Chair. So the motion's been amended to allow the cola of 2.7% only for the other elected officials, not the board of commissioners, the other six electeds. Commissioner West.

Uh what is that dollar figure if it was just the county commissioners and not other electeds not taking a cola? I do not have that readily available, but we can get that. We'll get that ASAP. We We only had it for all of you, but it's about $16,000 roughly for Right. That's right. Isn't it like six or something? The COLA cost is $3,841 per year per commissioner. So, times that 4,000 a commissioner. Okay. Am I looking at the right line? Actually, this is really small print. Yeah.

So, it's the column that says estimated fiscal impact second from the end. The last column you can see at the bottom line of each section cola only. So a quick math is approximately $18,000 of the six electeds only. Four times five. That's right. Four times 18,000 for the commissioners. No, excluding the commissioner is approximately $18,000 for the other six elected officials.

I I'd also invite any other elected that wants to join the commission to not take their um their cola if they want to do that. I don't know how they do that, but um maybe there are other electeds that feel like that they want to do this um for our taxpayers also. No pressure, but um there's an opportunity for um uh that also.

All right. So, we have a motion on the floor, a second. Uh any other discussion? Right. Um seeing none, do you Gary? Are you prepared to do a call for a vote? Andrew is ready. Yes. Yes. Go ahead, Andrew. Commissioner Savis. I. Commissioner Helm. I. Commissioner Shrader. I Commissioner West I Mr. Cernach uh no Mr. Rhodess I Mr. K I

Mr. Kaden I motion Mr. Chair I motion passes 8 to1 Mr. All right. Thank you. Before we move ahead, um, Commissioner Helm.

Yeah, just I'm I'm I apologize. Can I back up just a second back to the minutes? I just saw this and I just question this number on page six of the minutes. Um, item number five, review of the general fund. Um, Sandra Matoya notes that the forecast does not include payments that were approved in meetings from this morning of specifically an approval of $700,000 of Malala pilot and I believe that was a $7,000 payment, not $700,000. That is correct. It was $7,000. Right. Thank you. Great catch.

Thank you. You can make that correction. That would be great. Sorry I didn't catch it earlier. So without objection, may we make that edit and still re retain the approval of the committee from the prior motion. Is that okay? Yeah. Anyone object to that? Okay, we'll we'll just make the edit. You don't need another motion for that. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner.

All right. So next it looks like u Gary again I'm looking at um having a discussion of I think we just staying on the focus on the cola for the other elected officials. I think start with that. Well I guess the question is you can now do a cola for the board of commissioners only but I'm not sure you'd have the votes or not but you can or just bypass that and move on. I would suggest one at a time each of the electeds and say if you approve option A, prop option B or or none.

The vote we just took though was to not have the board of county commissioners take a call. That is correct. It was excluded. It didn't say you remove the board from the cola approval. That doesn't mean you can't make another motion just for the board. Although I've heard enough of you say you're concerned about that, but you did remove the board from the prior motion. That could be seen as the direction you don't want to address it, but that is an option. If someone wants to make a motion for the board only, you could take less than a 2.7% cola if you wanted a 2%. Or just drop it and move on. I I don't Oh, Commissioner Helm. No, no, that's I'm sorry. That's your old I don't see any.

I suggest moving on then. But are we going to go wait are we going to go one by one with each one of these financial impacts of every single position? The question was I and this is a question on the table for everybody is do we just do the cola for all of the other elected officials yes or no or do we go individually? So uh consistently if you look at them they're all recommended at 2.7. So we just did we just did that chair. So the motion approves a 2.7% cola for the six elected officials who are not the board. So the other six. So the next question is do you re do you do you approve option A or option B? Okay.

For one, two, four of the other elected officials who are recommended to have salary changes. You can do them as one group. You could do them one at a time or you could take no action and we're done. That's a discussion, Ben. So, the currently everyone's getting a cola but the board of county commissioners, right? That is correct. Okay. And I would like to go through these one by one um and make an independent decision on each one of these other impacts to the budget. Um I don't know if that I'm alone on that, but I think that's the best way to do it is to look at them individually on on that line item and then make a call

as a as a option. Yes. So I do I have to make a motion I don't know if we have to get consensus on that's what we're going to do or I I think that's probably the best way to do it. It's hard for me to like you know at least on the cola like if it I don't know how this process works but there's no other elected official is here to speak to their own cola. So I don't I I think we made the right call. I mean um but on these other items A or B then I think that we should go one by one. Okay.

All right. So let's start with the county assessor. Okay. All right. So, the assessor option A is for a 4.7% increase to the current salary. Option B is only a 2.2% increase to the current salary. So, your options are approve option A, approve option B, or make no change.

How can those numbers be the same? Can we put it back up on the It's just This is so small. Yeah. Thank you. So, the numbers are different, Commissioner. Oh, they are a little bit. Yes. Yeah, they are. Okay. They're they're different. Yeah. Okay.

So, in this case, look at column two because you did approve a cola for the six other electeds. So, this shows in the case of the assessor. Sorry, I'm pick no offense or picking on not picking on the assessor currently earns 173,120 a year in the first column. Column three with a 2% 2.7% cola. Option A, the total salary would be 186,151. Option B would be 181,76. And Jennifer has explained the reasons why they are recommending an increase for that position. There's a lot of money. That's a lot of money.

Um, I would move to not make a market adjustment for the assessor this year. I'll second. All right. So, if I understand this correctly, uh, Mr. Cernach has made a motion to accept or no to make no adjustments. No adjustments. Okay. Not even the B option. Okay. Uh make no adjustment and Commissioner West has seconded that. Any further discussion? I I'll I'll just No. Oh,

no. No. Quick question that. So, this is a vote to not make a market adjustment. The colo stays in place, but just no market. Correct. Yes, that clarifies my understanding. Thank you. Correct. Yeah. I I would just know I'm I'm kind of leaning on Gary's adjustment to only make adjustments for the two with large discrepancies. That's kind of where my thoughts coming from, but I'd agree. Yeah, I go ahead commission.

It's super weird to hear the word market when it's taxpayer dollars. They didn't create any wealth here. They didn't grow an economy here. Like it's not a market. They're just like competing with other elected peers that feed on taxpayer dollars. It's just such a weird word word to call it a market. Um I don't know. It's not what I learned about the economy when I went to school. Um but I just we're here to do public public service. We are in the the times that we're in. Um I will be supporting um no market increases uh period. So that's where I'm coming from. But I um that that has been a stable consistent salary and the current assessor has been in that role for a while and I'm sure has adjusted to the salary in which the taxpayers generously give him like we all have. So that's where my vote will be coming from.

All right, Commissioner um Hill. So I I I think I'm agreeing with Mr. Cernach. There's two disparities, right? the the clerk and the assessor are what's who's the other one? The clerk and the uh justice uh the justice of the peace. Right. Well, I I mean I think the treasurer actually has a larger variance listed here, but justice of the peach was peace was mentioned earlier. I don't know if that was a mis No, I that's I I meant the I did mean the justice of the peace. I think it was a justice of the peace and and the clerk which there are there are big disparities between what is considered market or their peers in other counties.

I would say we would would address those. But what but like who who sets this like the everyday working person that has to sit here and pretend like elected officials telling other elected officials how much money they should be making is do you know what I'm saying? Like every I bet you walked out right there on Main Street they would be like what the hell are you talking about? Right. So, I just and I just know exactly how these people feel right now and I'm hearing it every single day at the doors. I'm just I um we're doing really well compared to most our constituents in the metro area in our region and I just think what we we just don't have the ability to do big market changes when a lot of people the markets kind of put them in a crunch. Gary,

yes, thank you. So, market study is a HR term, human resources term, and compensation. That is what it's called when you study the the comparable salaries of other people in similar positions. So that that's the it's an HR term that they're using a market study a market adjustment. So it's totally human related to reviewing positions. So that that's where that term comes from. Thank you.

Right. And if I could just comment and I think Mr. Rhodess, Mr. K can probably both attest that um making sure that your market value pay for the employees and I'm talking about generally across the county um is in a market that attracts people, right? And um a lot of times they come to Clackamus Fire or the sheriff's office or the county um uh because of those paying benefits. So um I totally understand my colleagues about the cost here and that this is a difficult time. I just also believe that it is important to kind of be somewhere in the market. And I would also kind of say too just to it's just food for thought is sometimes it can be kicking the can down the road a little bit as well is uh at some point in time you you you want to get to market value uh or the market assessment. And so I am I'm fine at passing this, but I think that's also a consideration that uh it it kind of accumulates and I can tell you that they passed many years as when I was sheriff and it went up after I was gone, you know. So but um uh at some point you do have to kind of get to that market value uh to ensure across the board. So um so I think right now um we're at a point where Mr. Cernac, I just want to revisit where we're at, right? um has made a motion that on the assessor there is um no market increase. It's been seconded by Commissioner West. We've had discussion and now he has another

just for food for thought. Everybody on this list makes significantly more than every statewide elected, including the governor. So what's what are we talking about markets here about government work? Um, you have you have part-time electeds at the Portland City Council making more than we do on this DAS and most of us work full-time plus. We literally have 15 candidates that choose to be county commissioners right now on the ballot. And one of them publicly said in an actual chamber forum a couple weeks ago that he was shocked and excited and wanted to run because of how much money the county commissioners make. That was one of Diana's appointment opponents. I'm You're laughing because it's true. It is true. I am not making it up. It's on the record. Look it up yourselves. But I'm just saying I'm just I'm just saying like what this isn't a market. This is all arbitrary. Nobody is like looking at someone's job skills and sets and saying like you deserve this much and you're doing this on your own merit. It's hard to win elections. But once again, we're spending other people's monies and everyone in everyone here makes more money than the actual governor who's the executive of the state of Oregon. So that's why I'm pushing back on this market term. I know it's an HR term. I know it's legitimate, but I think perspective matters here when we are talking about these salaries.

All right, I think we're ready to call for a poll. Can we repeat the motion, please? Yeah. So, again, Mr. uh Cernac has made a motion that there is no market increase and we are talking about the county assessor only. Um, and it's been seconded by Commissioner West. Correct. Correct. All right. Are you good with that, Paul? Yep. Yeah. Okay. Sir, Mr. Kaitton. Hi, Mr. K. Hi, Mr. Rhodess. Hi, Mr. Cernac. I Commissioner Savis, I.

Commissioner Helm, I. Commissioner Shrader, I. Commissioner West, I. Mr. Chair I motion passes 9 to zero. Mr. Chair. Great. Okay. Next up is the county clerk. And I've heard some uh thoughts and um conversations about her uh compensation. So is uh anybody want to make a motion on just the county clerk? Okay,

chair, I would move that we do option B for clerk McMullen. uh she I will say uh she is doing a great job and she shows up all throughout the community and um I think there's such a disparity between her and her colleagues um other elected colleagues that I think we need to uh rightsize that number but I'm okay with option B. All right second is much better. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I'll second that.

All right. Thank you. So, to repeat that motion, uh, Commissioner Helm has moved to approve uh, county clerk's option A B or I'm sorry, option B increase. And, Commissioner Shrader has seconded that. Any further discussion? Chair. Yes, Commissioner West.

Um, option A is 26.5%, option B is 24%. It's an ex it's expensive either way. Um, I can't disagree with the kind words that my colleague, Commissioner Helm, just spoke to. I I I have no issue with that, but I um that's a significant number. Um and so for that reason alone, because there's not really that big of a difference between A or B, and because of the size of it, I will not be supporting the motion.

All right. Any other Go ahead, Commissioner. Yeah, just I going to throw something out here being we have three of these more three more of these to go and that suggestion might be what if we try to target um for example the assessor we did not recognize a 4.7 or a 2.2. So if market is if we used the market number of 4.7 um like for option A and applied that um and subtracted that from 26.5 um as an example then it would bring it down to 20 2 it'd be down to 238 I think.

Yeah. And so basically I want to try to say if we kept the market about 4.75% on each of the four vacancies if that's our not vacancies but um classifications it might be uh give us some rule of thumb to have some consistency. All right, just saying Gary, in theory that respectfully in theory that works and it would not in this case because the clerk is so far behind market. She would still be behind market if you stuck to a a flat rate for all the electeds. This is trying to get everyone at par with what others are paid in that same position in other counties and also internally. So,

well, that that's not what I meant. I'm sorry I explain it right. So, I I'll take responsibility for not explaining it right. My guess, my goal is is that whatever that number is to get everyone at 5% below market. Oh, my apologies. For those four positions. Got it. Oh, just 5% below market. Just 5%. So, you know, again, I could do the math here. Um 4.7 minus 26.5 would be um 227. 218, I think. Oh, 218, I believe.

Okay. Yeah, I guess where I'm at on it is I I feel like uh and I'm sorry, Jamie, I'll call you just one second. Is I this is what I took as the chairs. I felt like people wanted to give input on each one. And if we did that, that would just kind of be as one lump, one lump. And so I'm kind of leaning towards unfortunately it's probably taken a little longer to go through it like that. Um uh but I think that might give folks the opportunity to make any comment that they want. Jamie, you had a comment.

Uh yeah, question for the compensation board. So when we talk about you know behind market uh has I'm looking for some historical clarity based on has this been something that transpired over the last five years or has it been under market for the last 30? I don't know if you have that info or any background. Yes, it's a couple of things going on. Sorry, I'm trying to speak in the mic, but also look at you.

But one is that there have been some recommendations made in the last few years that were not approved and therefore it does fall below market uh which was referred to earlier over time. In addition, since this was a match analysis year, it the compensation board does a deeper dive and so in that case found a new match in Benton County. the very similar work being performed and so that is also playing into that. So the the clarified mark uh the clarified comparable jurisdictions to look at as well as kind of the the catch up.

Okay. So kind of a compounding issue over not approval over a period of time for the most part has led us to the if you would 24% figure. Yeah. a combination of that and then the clarified kind of jurisdictions that were determined this year and the addition of Benton County. Okay. Thank you. Because it was a very limited market before. Thank you. All right. So, I have a motion on the floor and a second. So, uh regarding her increase. Yes. Which is listed as on the chart a 24% increase column three. Commissioner Savis has made a counter suggestion. So the main motioner needs to either amend the mot or I guess you could amend the motion commission.

No, I just a suggestion. I' been asked for a motion to be amended. I just made a suggestion to get us through the four and have some baseline so that we are keeping them on best a par as possible. Got it. Um that's so I I just want to put that out there. That's all I did. Got it. So I think we're ready for Andrew poll. Mr. Mr. Cernneck I Mr. Rhodess I Mr. Kon I Mr. Kaitton I Commissioner Savis I Commissioner Helm I

Commissioner Shder I Commissioner West no. Mr. Chair I motion passes 8 to1 Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. So, we're going to uh correct me jump down to district attorney. Correct. If you still want to go through each one, there's a suggestion for the chair of the board, which would be next commission chair. Oh,

and so if I may, that would be a So currently the chair the comm the chair of the commission, the chair of the board of commissioners receives an additional 2% pay over the other county commissioners because of the extra duties. The chair is responsible for chairing meetings and setting meeting agendas. The compensation board is recommending an additional 1%. So it's a total of 3% higher pay than the rest of the county commissioners. So you could either dispense, we could discuss it or just move on. Up to you. Uh I move that we adopt the 1% increase uh for the chair of county commissioners from 2% to 3%.

Craig, is that is that okay with you? Are you We can we can also have a second for discussion. Um you had your light on, sir. I had a question unrelated related but not related to this. I'll second for discussion so we can get past that part. Yeah. All right. So, uh, Commissioner West has made a motion. Uh, for the chair for 1% increase. Correct. Um, and Commissioner Cernac has seconded that discussion. Mr. Sir Nak, you

Oh, I I just It looked like people wanted to talk and we were waiting. Yeah, I was asking my question was asking if you're you're comfortable with that. Not really. Well, then yeah, just I just voice it because, you know, I I want to know where you feel about it. I don't want to put you in awkward position,

right? Um well, I feel I feel along the same lines as my colleagues here. I think this is just difficult time and um I think I really think the majority of the board up here if not all of us kind of got in to this for uh not for the pay I will say uh it's for the cause. So I'm I'm fine uh with just bypassing this. So I I it's an awkward position to be in anyway. It's just like this is always awkward. Yeah. So um uh

yeah so I guess go ahead. Yeah. So my question related to this is a technical question and uh recently it came to our attention about at least with CCSO the term add to pay right and um and I see is being used here for this position as well. Is it ident is it identical or is there a in the CCSO contract is there a different definition or formula or calculation not the numeric amount but is it does it mean something slightly different?

It means something slightly different here than say an incentive because you have DPSSST certifications things like this. This is we look at the comparables for commissioners as a whole and then in 2013 the comp board decided due to the additional responsibilities we would assign a flat percentage on top of that. So a little bit different and it is a term that in HR we use generally the add to pay and it can mean a little bit different but it's a flat percentage on top of the base pay.

Okay. So the difficulty with the CCSO example you use is really figuring out which of those employees or deputies or whoever they are, right? Um um uh how that calculation is going to be unique for each of them, right? Yes. Okay. Yes. Much more complicated. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. I just need to get educated there.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner West. Um it it just seems very reasonable to me that the chair who by statute, not always by function of the elected, um does have more responsibilities and they are the chair for the entire county of one of the larger counties in the entire state. Just to have to my opinion 3 to 5% more in salary for that for that role. That makes sense. And it's pretty minimal, right? It's it's really minimal. Um, but I think that that is an appropriate structure if we're looking at the structure of this with also just really minimal cost to rightsize that that way and and now knowing the role you almost finishing my first term of the chair versus what we all we all work really hard so I'm not even like I don't want to say one works harder than the other because we're all workh horses but um uh that just makes sense to me. So I'm fine with the 1%. Um Craig I think you've earned it. Um

well Hill learned it too in DC. We know um so that's why I'm going to support it. Uh but it it seems like a reasonable margin for a chair. It just see it seems to be an appropriate structure. All right. Yes, sir. Mr. process question. As I recall, we need six votes to pass anything no matter how many are in attendance. Is that right? That is correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Commissioner S.

Yeah. I have a question for the compensation uh people here today. Um number one, when you did the comparison for the chair, right? I mean, there are some uh counties in which the chair is more of an executive position and a decision-making position. Did you calculate that into the into this or

Yes. So, um, Washington County, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Washington County, um, has the most similar structure to Clackamus County. They have a 10%, um, difference between the the chair and the elected commissioners. So, that is really the only county that has a similar structure to Clackmus County. Okay. Because mom's a strong chair, right? Correct. It's a different structure. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So, being the structure is the same, but they chose to go beyond I won't say the limit so to speak, but um that outlier is affecting this which gets that spiraling example I talked about earlier.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other comments? I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. So, there's a motion and a second to have discussion. Roberts. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Um, so just to clarify, he would still have the 2%. Correct. This would This is for the additional one, correct? Okay. Yeah. Okay. Making that a total of three. Yeah. Three. I think we're ready. Unless there's a comment. I want to make sure everybody's got a chance. Gary, anything else before we go on? Okay. I'm trying here. Go ahead,

Mr. Mr. Kaitton I Mr. K I Mr. Rhodess I Mr. Cernach nay Commissioner Savis I don't know if I should honor Craig's wish or so you're going to get it whe you like it or not Craig so I'll join Mr. Cernach uh in honoring um uh the chair's wish and we had a discussion about this in DC. I'm a nay also. Commissioner Helm nay. Commissioner Shrader I Commissioner West I Mr. Chair

oh I'm I abstain from this. That's smart. It fails. Fails. Motion fails with only five affirmative votes, Mr. Chair. All right, that was quite a discussion, everybody. Ah, next district attorney. So, next, the district attorney has no change other than the cola, which you've already approved. So, following next is the justice of the peace. Again, an option A and an option B. You're in column three.

All right. Justice of the peace. Is there a motion for our justice of the peace? Well, there's not much difference there. Not really. Yeah. No. Okay. It's an attorney, right? Uh I'm I'm going to I'm going to make a motion to approve option B for the justice of the peace. I'll second that.

Okay. I think it uh Sav uh has uh made a motion for justice of the peace having a 2.9% based on market increase seconded by Commissioner West. And is there any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, I'm back to you, Andrew. Mr. Cernac. Um, I'm sorry I didn't hear you, Mr. Yeah, because I'm thinking. Sorry. No, Mr. Rhodess. Hi, Mr. Carton. Hi,

Mr. Kaden. Hi, Commissioner West.

I Commissioner Helm, I. Commissioner Shrader, I. Commissioner Savis. I, Mr. Chair. I, Motion passes 8 to1, Mr. Chair. All right. Next, uh, the county sheriff. And this is simply the.5% increase because of compression between the sheriff and the highest paid employee in that office, which would be the under sheriff. I move we do not give a half percent increase to the sheriff. Again, I'll second that. Is there a second?

James. Mr. Rhodess was a second. Sorry. Uh, M. Mr. Rhodess, you have yours up. Did you say he seconded the motion? Oh, he seconded. I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. All right. It's been seconded and by Mr. Rhodess and further discussion. So my understanding is that irregardless of our vote um it shall be 0.5% more regardless, right? No. No. You're making a motion for no increase. So no to the.5% increase. My Yeah. My point is, isn't it required to have a delta or not? Jennifer, go ahead.

Um so not approving the 0.5% increase would not present any issues under the statutory requirements. Okay, that's what I need to hear. Thank you. Okay, question. Any other Mr. Rhodess has his card raised. Chair, that is RHS. Mr. Rhodess, go ahead. Thank you. Uh, just for clarification, the statute requires that the sheriff be paid more than any of its employees. Not not 10% more, not 5% more, just more. More. Correct. A dollar more.

Right. Could be a dollar more. More. And so not increasing it, I'm sorry, the proposed 0.5% would put it in the 5% range above the the under sheriff. Uh not doing this, the sheriff will still be paid more than under sheriff, just less than 5% more. Yes. Well within the statutory requirement, right? Thank you. All right. Any other comments? Andrew Commissioner West, do you know the average salary of an under sheriff? I just need a moment. Yeah, no problem. I think I'm guessing she makes 20 $25,000 more a year right now than her under sheriffs who also are paid very handsomely by the tax

which is probably back into an approximate if half a percent gets her to the 5% mark. Yeah, you do that way too. Yeah, it it looks to be about 2,000 more on. Yeah, I thought So I thought they don't Okay. I thought they made like 220 or something, but okay. I could be wrong, but they a month. A month. A month. Okay. Okay. So, we're both right. We're both get to be right. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, I think we're ready for a poll. Mr. Cern, uh, just to clarify before I answer, a yes vote means no adjustment. Correct. That's correct. Thank you for the clarification,

Mr. K. Yes. Mr. Rhodess. I Mr. Kaitton I Commissioner West I Commissioner Shrader I Commissioner Helm I Commissioner Savis I Mr. Chair I motion passes nine to nothing Mr. Chair. All right finally is the treasurer the recommendation is both an option A and an option B to increase the treasurer salary. All right. Anyone willing to make a motion?

I move that we uh do not increase um the treasurer's salary, neither option A or B to clarify. Are you moving for no adjustment? No adjustment. That we don't Okay. Yeah. Cola only. Yeah. Cola only.

I'll second. Okay. Okay, Commissioner West has made a motion to not increase the salary either A or B, which means uh no adjustment outside the cola. Mr. Cernac has seconded that. Any further discussion? All right, seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll? Mr. Kaden, nay. Mr. K, nay. Mr. Rhodess. I Mr. Cern I Commissioner Savis I Commissioner Helm I Commissioner Shrader

nay commissioner West I Mr. chair. He's He's got kids. Sorry. And if they heard that, good. All right. He's a family. Uh kids through college. Motion fails. Mr. Chair. All right. And next, Gary. Well, based on that, that means you need to approve option A or option B or just make do take no action, which is the same of what you just did. So, the motion was to make no change, which fails.

So, I'm inferring you do want to make a change, which should be option A or option B. Could there be a motion for that? Could we make a different adjustment? You can do whatever you'd like. Yes. Okay. Yeah, that's what my question was. Could we make an alternative option? You may. Yes. Um, I I'll move that we make a 5% market adjustment for the treasurer. I'll second that. Okay. Mr. Cernac has moved to make a 5% market adjustment for the county treasur. It's been seconded by Commissioner Shrader. Any further discussion?

Right. Seeing none, we'll do a poll again. Mr. Mr. Kaitton, I Mr. K. I Mr. Rhodess I Mr. Cernach I Commissioner Savis I Commissioner Helm I Commissioner Shrader I Commissioner West I Mr. chair. I motion passes 9 to zero, Mr. Chair. Now, you finished the compensation board report. It's hot in here. It is.

So, we are not done yet though, budget committee. I We're way over time. I apologize. Thank you to our compensation members, Nina and Jennifer, very if if if you could all hang out just a little bit longer. I have a quick update to prepare you for the budget committee week and then we'll be done. So Tone or Andrew, if you could please progress to this slide in the slide deck. All right. So budget committee members, you will next meet after this date on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, later in the afternoon. Time to be determined. We'll get you that as soon as possible. And you will receive the proposed budget that I will present to you for Clakammus County for fiscal year 2627. I have finalized the proposed budget. It is with staff right now to prepare and compile the budget. It will be given to you on Elizabeth. Can you do you have a general date of when the budget books will go out?

Second week of May, I believe.

We'll confirm, but around the second week of May, which is about three weeks from today or this week, you'll get the proposed budget book. We're not here to discuss the proposed budget, but I want to prepare you for what you're going to get. So this is factors that impacted what I'm proposing to you. Again, you haven't seen anything yet. No commissioners have influenced me. This is my recommendation to you as a budget committee. You will now take it and do with it as you wish. A reminder, this slide shows how much of the county general fund, which is property taxes, which is discretionary funds. You get to decide where they go, is currently spent in the current fiscal year. This is approximately $170 million of general fund. This is exactly where it goes. You can see from this chart, the most is to the sheriff's office, followed by the district attorney's office. The courthouse is not a department, but that's counting for the annual payment, and then it goes down from there. Uh what each department receives. You fund a lot of different services that the county public expects from you and their county government. Uh but that's where it goes. So, just a reminder, there's limited dollars. This is how you currently spend it and you'll get to decide how you want to spend it next fiscal year. Next slide, please, Andrew. So, here are the things that help me make my decisions on what I'm proposing to you. First is what you recommended as a budget committee one year ago, which has since resulted in an update to the county code. It is a new chapter 2.16 budget development. It requires me as your budget officer to present to you a 30-year financial forecast that must have a positive ending balance, which means in the black. Now, really, this was meant to be for the 30 years of the courthouse payment. We're already in year 28. Two years have already gone by, believe it or not. But for now, year 28 to 30 in the black. I must also present to you a

budget that is sustainable, balanced, and structurally sound, which means especially structurally sound, ongoing programs are funded with ongoing revenues. It restricts the allocation of one-time revenues to one-time expenditures. So, that's what my requirement you gave me, and I met that requirement, but it was painful. Finally, you all know this. Property tax is the main source of county revenue, at least for the general fund programs you just saw. And that limits growth because the property tax, while it does increase every year, the expense increases are usually higher than what the property tax increase is. Next slide, please. So, there were no cuts to departments in my proposed budget. No cuts. However, any department that received general fund, I am proposing they receive a 3% increase. That was not enough for many departments. A 3% increase did not cover the increasing cost of personnel and materials and supplies. So, I am framing it this way. You can disagree. I'm framing it. There's no cuts, but there are departments that can't live can't live within that limit of an only 3% increase. That's how I'm messaging this. You may agree or not. So, this really impacted the sheriff's office. No surprise. So, once again, uh again, we're not here to talk about the proposed budget, but the sheriff could not live within the 3% increase because of the ongoing expenses of personnel and materials and supplies. So, with that, you all have a choice to make. So, this is your preview. You may choose to disagree with my recommendation of not fully giving the sheriff what she believes she needs to fund her office, in which case you'll have to take it from somewhere else. And here are the things you can consider just to foreshadowing to get you ready for a month from now. You can modify the forecast requirement and basically change the county code and move back to

a five-year forecast only that were in the black for 5 years. I'm not recommending that, but that's an option you can make and then we're golden. We're actually golden for the next 15 years. It's after that that we start to go into red as you will see when we present the budget to you. I purposely didn't do a forecast for you today because we're already 30 minutes over schedule and we'd be here all day, but you'll see that here in three weeks. You could revise the forecast assumptions to assume more risk. We're very conservative, financially conservative in the forecast. We can be a little more more risky. They'll have f further years in the black. You may allow one-time revenue to only be used each year if it is available. We currently don't do that. You could rethink what services the county provides to the public. And I've been suggesting that to you for quite a while actually. Uh reduce duplication of services, positions, technology across the county. So in the in the particular case of the sheriff's office, you could reduce other departments to accommodate the funds that the sheriff needs. You could delay the reductions for one year, which is kicking the can, but there will still be a problem next year. So I I I don't expect you to have a 12-h hour deliberation day, but you will have some very important decisions to make. So I just want to preamble this to preview this. Watch. I I the whole mood of the the whole mood of the room just went down. But this is to just appraise you. This is what's coming. We're not here to talk about specifics. You will see the proposed budget in approximately 3 weeks. And I look forward to having a robust discussion with you all. So, please kind of noodle that, think about that as you all come together here at the end of May on May 26. That is my presentation. I'm happy to answer any highle questions you may have. Elizabeth, go ahead. Just want to add, Gary, that the board uh budget packets will be out and delivered on Friday, May 8th.

There you go. That's the date you'll receive your packets and it'll be posted online for the public to see, May 8th. So, happy to answer any high level questions you may have about what I just said.

All right. Uh, Commissioner Sabis has a question. So, there's something kind of important kind of left out, Gary. And I know you didn't deliberately leave anything out, but I think it's something worth um discussing and sharing for the budget committee members and and the public that are watching. And that is that last year um you know we and it's in the meeting summary essentially we now have been able to establish and prove that the the levy uh was not accurately calculated and therefore and as with the city contracts and also the disparity in the in the way the internal costs were not calibrated into the sheriff's budget whether it was EL the city contracts or the levy or even theeneral general fund. And what we discovered is is that um the general fund has been subsidizing uh c um eed the city contracts and the levy and that rough number I'm going to say rough that rough number just for the levy and based on the on the sheriff's recommended millage rate for what's on the ballot. Um if that millage rate was in place today, it would generate 11.4 million additional dollars. So essentially, if the levy passes, there's all the I believe and with the with all the other adjustments everywhere else, there should be an ability to pay for all those things without making any changes. Okay. So, um, and then next year and every year as the as the accelerator goes up on the property tax increase, that will be 12 million the year following and then third as as it goes up. So, I'm thinking with between everything that we do uh

with the with the levy and the city contracts, there's 156 million roughly 15 maybe dollars sitting out there that we would have additional uh without having to subsidize if the levy passes. If the levy does not pass, then we're going to be underwater uh with the sheriff's le because there's no way of funding those positions, right? Um and but we'll have an opportunity to put it back on the ballot in November at whatever we do. So you based just a clarification, you based the the budget uh on a static amount the levy's currently collecting. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes.

Right. The other thing that I wanted to say um is that and you kind of you touched on it, but I I think the principle of the 30-year budget uh which I strongly support uh was to make sure that in the final years of the of the payments due right um year 28 in this case that we're in the black and what I understood last time we saw the forecast. We had a couple three years in the latter years the latter the last two or three years of the levy maybe not the levy but the courthouse payments there was a couple years there where we in the red and then somehow we climbed out of it. I still haven't had an explan I'd like to get an explanation of that. Um but now I understand that there's more of those years in the red which I have not seen which I don't understand and so I need to get to the bottom of that. I want to get to the I'm not comfortable with that. So my question to you, Gary, is this 4.9 million, how did you compensate for that in the in your proposed budget?

Yes. So Elizabeth, I'm going to ask for your assist here how we did that. I believe it came from beginning fund balance and then we we spread it out over multiple years, but would you please share how we accommodated for that? That's exactly it, Gary. Um, we moved funds from contingency and then we've just made allowances for that over the course of the next 30 years in the forecast. So then essentially that's why we have more years in the red because we are trying to bake this in. Correct. Correct. Yes.

Okay. And I'm not okay with that either. I just going to get that on the record. Um uh and I'm hoping that we come back with a budget that will it'll be after the levy after May 19th. We'll know whether the levy passed or not. And then we it'll be in a completely different position is what I'm trying to say here. But I I if we need to refine the ordinance um or the understanding how to interpret the ordinance, then then we shall. But I I don't think I want to um uh just have situations like this where we end up 4.9 million. And again, 4 million of that was an additional ask of the sheriff's office, right? And I also would like to get a total of the last five or 10 years of just trying to calculate backwards if the levy's been off for this long. Five years is probably the best. How much money we've actually subsidized uh with all the new calculations whether it's the the city contracts um elvy. If that subsidy or that underolction was let's say I'm just going to take a stab at it. Let's just say it's $40 million. Um I think that $40 million could um could have would have paid for this $4 million. So I want to work back and see if there's a way of trying to get the uh if the levy passes, we got to support that. That's really important. I want to be publicly on the record of supporting the levy. Um we'll be in a position to pay this back or CCSO will be in a position to pay this back because we have been subsidizing the levy.

Right. We'll get that for you. Mr. Rhodess has his card raised. Mr. Rhodess, sorry. Uh Gary, you made mention that because of the your across the board 3% general fund increase less some departments short and you mentioned the sheriff's office. Can you tell me what other departments are short? Yes, the uh district attorney's office, the assessor's office, and health, housing, and human services. uh those offices have uh chose to adjust and find a path to tighten their belts as tight as possible and in some cases I gave a little bit of proposed extra general fund to accommodate as I did for the sheriff's office but it was not just the sheriff's office.

Thank you. And um you listed brief went through a quick list of some potential solutions for us to consider. um are you going to detail those in maybe some more specificity to us and would that come in our budget packets that we're going to receive or some other fashion? Um I will go into great detail during the budget week in May and I'm always happy to talk to any of you individually which I'm allowed to do which we can do prior to that if you'd like but my I will present that to you at the budget committee meetings. Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right, Commissioner West has a comment. It's wild to me that on that graph, uh, $117 million is all law enforcement or some intersection with it. I look at the sheriff's office and the district attorney's office and the courthouse is all intersecting with safe communities, law enforcement, justice, those all intersect together. Um, that's about $17 million. Um, I got elected at the I think my one of my first tasks as a brand new commissioner was at a groundbreaking for the courthouse right over here. I had nothing really to do with it except to show up to the groundbreaking um and then as it was built out. But that $15 million is a serious pressure. It just is. Like I know that people try to spend it one way or another. I can't see it any other way that that is a serious pressure that we took on. Um and we're going to have to try to deal with that now today. it the the roosters, what is it? The chickens have come home to roost. Is that right? Um I think we're feeling that a little bit now and that just is what it is. Um uh other commissioners and previous commissions commi commissioners made that decision and here we are today with these real pressures, but I know that this board is very committed to finding a path to make sure that our needs around law enforcement are fully funded. I mean, look at how the budget committee board is made. I don't think you could have a more pro-law enforcement budget committee than this one here in the region. Um, and for the service of some of our members within that field of work for so many decades and years. So, um, I I I kind of at this point where I want to look at like the sheriff's budget and I want to line item it. I I want to see everything. Um, I I want to hopefully not have to have another 16, 12-hour marathon meeting

like we did last year. Um, to try to get ahead of this, but we spend a lot of money on every single aspect of law enforcement. Um, and that's apparent here by this graph. I agree with much much of what Commissioner Savage just said and presented. And I mean I'm curious about how much the general fund has been inappropriately subsidizing or necessarily subsidizing um the levy. Um and that has been a strain on all these other departments. I look at this graph. I don't know where else we're really going to cut. I mean I don't see a I don't see a lot I mean I mean there it's just not there. I mean those are real small bars. once you get past the top three. Those are really small amounts in comparison. Um, so you know, we we're going to cut disaster management. Well, we almost had the Armageddon fire not that long ago and the heat dome and other things. I don't know. There's no money to cut there. We probably need more money there. Like facilities just to maintain the properties we have. That's not a lot. Um, yeah. I don't Health and Human Services. I mean, that's how we prevent a lot of people from getting into the justice system and making sure they're taken care of. Uh how much you going to cut the prevention side? Um so, I don't know. I I'm interested in talk about line item budgeting and um I I think it is critical that everybody here is supporting the levy moving forward that we get that right and that will relieve a lot of pressure. So, those are my thoughts. Chair,

thank you. All right. Did I turn your light off or not? No, no, my back on. Oh.

Uh, so, uh, appreciate the comments. Uh, I want to just add, first of all, I want to thank the sheriff, uh, and the sheriff, uh, in this case for making some changes internally. And two of the people that have been key, uh, in straightening out some of the financials within the CCOs, so are here in the room today. of under Sheriff Eie and and and Patrick Williams uh done significant great work in getting some of those internal cost calculated into um all these different operations. So I know that they're still working on that and they made a tremendous amount of of uh progress. I just want to just thank them uh for their great work. Um, and I I think has given us a better understanding of why we've been having different opinions because we didn't really understand the numbers. Our viewpoints been different. We've been we've been trying to figure out why we having these pressures. Um, and uh, I'm not saying that, you know, everything's going to be perfect, but I'm still waiting to see what that budget looks like and again the levy passing and how things will be out there. I do agree. I think that with Commissioner West, I think that we ought to line item the budget to make sure that the positions that are we feel are most important or if not if not all the positions are line item, whether it's by category or worst case individually, but we have really worked hard over the years. I've been here for 15 years and we've worked hard even when Sheriff Roberts was the sheriff um saying we want those positions filled. We want them filled. We want them filled. And um I know it's always there's attrition so there's always a challenge. It's not that you know it's it's easy as snapping the fingers and you can have filled positions. And so I I I think that's one thing I I want to make sure that we uh make it very clear that people can't go out there and say we're not we're not

funding our staff at CCSO um or something like that. It's um as I checked in again with Gary this morning and Gary's response was uh are we fully funding the positions um um in CCSO and your answer was for the current fiscal year. Well, yes. Okay. I I forgot the I forgot your question, Commissioner.

Well, that that was your answer this morning. So, um, and and my last comment is, uh, as we talk about public safety, and, you know, I think we automatically think we jump to the CCSO, the sheriff's office naturally, but I do want to point out the DA's office, and I want to point out all those inciliary operations that that are part of the criminal justice system, um, arresting people and just keeping them in the jail, um, is not criminal justice unless we can't prosecute those who need to be prosecuted. We got to realize that there's a cost to that and uh the DA's office has been running on a shoestring for a long time. Um and uh I'm I'm hoping that maybe again if we are in a better position and we can see the budget and the forecast and the levy passes, I think we might be in a position to uh look at making some adjustments that help out the um district attorney's office budget. So chair, that's what I have.

All right. Um Mr. K. Uh this be a question for Gary. Uh Commissioner Sus brought up a very good point that I think if it's best discussed when we meet referencing that if indeed we are not collecting enough money through the levy, right? Uh and other revenues. Uh that's a big deal, right? And is there a mechanism to easily fix that? And if that's the best discussion for our next time we meet, then just say so. That's that's best for when you next meet. And you're we're way out of time here, too. Right. Something real quick, Cindy.

I just wanted more to say, but I'm not going to. But the one thing I do want to say is there is another year of the current levy, which is will be part of next year's budget. So then, Cindy, could you tilt the microphone towards you? Oh, sorry. Um there is another year of the current levy. So which will which is part of next year's budget. The new levy won't start if it passes until the following year. So I just want to make sure that folks are clear about that. Good. All right.

All right. So thank you for the extra time today. There's a lot for you to think about and talk about a month from now. We'll brief you to talk to you prior to that. You'll get your budget book on May 8th. But thank you all for being here today and for your patience. Back to you, Chair. All right. Um I know we get have to move on. I uh I just want to kind of go back and make a quick comment because we've gone way over on this topic, but I think the um and this isn't kind of a time to really get into the debate of the budget. We're going to get in that later. And and I can't agree with this that the and Mr. Rose knows this, the EL hasn't kept pace. We we would come before the board and we would tell you look uh there's not enough money there. there's these vacancies. Do you want to fill them yes or no? And kind of that decision was made. I think on the on the levy itself, um I can just say there's a lot of time spent with county finance and everybody trying to figure out that cost model. Now, has it has it tweaked and refined? Absolutely. I think that um just like in anything else, what uh impacts it is electricity, right? Look at your own electricity bill and trying to project that. Look at the fuel bill right now, right? It's over a million dollars in fuel for the sheriff's office and some of these things. Medical expenses. The medical contract at the jail, I know, is a massive contract. Food services. You see food going up at home. Guess what? Food's going up at the jail, too. And so each one of these, you do your very best kind of projecting some of those, but sometimes you you can be off. And I think um and then on top of it which really kind of compounds the thing and I think was lessons learned for the future is is if we negotiated a contract the POA right then that has to kind of be calculated in because that came in after we had gone to the voters

right and so those costs went up and then suddenly with the shortfall we're going to have more discussion about this I think everybody's right in their own way and I think just trying to come together with you as a budget committee, help us all better understand it more and um and do the best we can to move forward. So, I appreciate all of you participating in this. You guys all bring a wealth. So, with that, Gary, I'm going to move on and uh we What do we have to wrap it up? Would you like to take a short break before the next You have two more policy sessions, commissioners. Let's take a short break. Short five minute break. How's that? county with boards.

All right, we'll reconvene and what do you have next? Thank you. Your next policy session is cost recovery policy for fees, fines, and revenue agreements. Presenting is Elizabeth Comfort, finance director. Go ahead, please, Elizabeth.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and commissioners. Elizabeth Comfort, finance director. Uh before you have we have an updated cost recovery policy. Uh you adopted this policy first in 2020 and then with amendments in 2024. And this amendment um today before you has three updates. One is to clarify that the district attorney's office that they have their own recovery policy. And then we also want to clarify the customer price index the CPI used each year. We want to be consistent. So we stated which that is. It's the west region in December. And then also due to the elimination of the penny uh the treasur's office uh developed some language that we wanted to insert here. of rounding up, rounding down and so those are the three changes and uh I look for your approval.

All right. Okay. Thank you very much, Elizabeth. Um any questions for my colleagues? Do I have a motion then? I move to approve the amended policy as presented. Second. Do you want me to redo that with the mic on? Yes, please. I move to approve the amended policy as presented. And I'll second that. All right. Commissioner Helman has moved to approve the amended policy as presented. Commissioner Shrader seconded that. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, can you call the poll? This one was easier. Commissioner Shrader I. Commissioner West. I. Commissioner Savis. Hi. Commissioner Helm. I. Mr. Chair.

I. Motion passes five to zero. Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you, Elizabeth Gary. Thank you. That was quick. Your final policy session today. We've saved the best for last. Short-term rental registration pilot program review. The lead presenters today are Caroline Hill and Celia Nicholson, who are from the office of the county administrator, and they'll be supported by, and I'm sure they'll show up any minute, Elizabeth Comfort, finance director, who's here, Dan Johnson, director of transportation and development, and Jeff Muns, assistant county council. I know Jeff and Dan are on their way any second, but Caroline and Celia will kick it off. Go ahead, please. Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners and administrator Schmidt. My name is Caroline Hill and I'm from County Admin.

And I'm Celia Nicholson from County Admin.

So, we are here today to ask for your direction on next steps for the short-term rental program. First, I would like to start by giving you a quick summary of where we started and how we got here. In 2019, after months of research, planning and zoning staff came before the PCC to present their findings. At that time, matters of consideration were garbage, maximum capacity, maximum days annually, off- streetet parking, fire safety, and noise. Since then, the BCC has considered a variety of versions and options for the STR regulations. Fast forward to 2023, and the BCC approved and enacted the STR pilot program. The pellet was set to sunset after two years at which point a review of the program and the effectiveness would occur. I would like to turn it over to my colleague Celia to go over our findings on the administrative process of the program.

Thanks Caroline. Three main categories emerged when looking at how the STR program functioned internally at the county. Staffing, registration, and software. As implemented, the program did not budget for dedicated staff to be trained on and administer the program with only 0.225 FTE being allotted to track complaints. The program did not budget for staff to manage the system or resolve complaints and violations. The registration process relies on the honor system for operators and there's no process for confirming that all active STR operators have registered. And the software presents multiple challenges. As it currently functions, it provides too much unnecessary data and very few options for customizing reports of that data. Does not eliminate redundancies in the listings it reports. So if one STR is listed on multiple platforms, it shows up as multiple STRs. Further, there is a potential for unrealized revenue from unregistered STRs, but the software does not facilitate attempts to determine that revenue. And finally, management of complaints against STRs submitted to the platform is cumbersome at best, but unmanageable in practice. The software does have some useful functionality, but it would require significant and potentially ongoing training to be effective. Caroline,

thank you, Celia. The community has remained very engaged not only through the research process, but also during the pilot process. They have continued to communicate their concerns and are anxious to for the for next steps. I would like to share a high level overview of the comments shared STR fees. We received a wide range of comments on this topic pretty evenly split in favor for those neighbors affected by STRs as a and opposed for STRS operators. Enforcement is the most frequent thing we hear. The community would like to see stronger enforcement cap limits. There's overwhelming interest in exploring caps or limits for STRs. And lastly, the community strongly encourages the BCC to take decisive action. Selena and I are happy to answer any questions that you may have.

You're going to have a lot. I know. I'm sorry. All right. I think Commissioner West was first out of the gate. Yeah. I just have a historical question about how we got here. Um, has there ever previously in the county's history up in Wilches been an implemented or effective STR program to address this issue? Ever in the history of Clackman's County? The first, not that we can find. The first uh the the county looked into it, but was back in 2019 when planning and zoning had done some research and community outreach, okay, with v various CPOS and public meetings to get input from them. Before that, we didn't have anything. But nothing was implemented after research was done.

No, nothing was implemented until 2023 when the board adopted and enacted that these current pilot programs. These current pilot program after much research and public engagement. Yeah, there was some approving of code change code and and so on, but nothing ever was enacted. Okay. So, nothing viable existed. There was nothing viable that not to my knowledge.

Not to your knowledge. Thank you for clarifying that. That was been a question out in the community that I had gotten, but as far as I know, the first real um responsive policy position pilot program was the one enacted in 2023. Um, so that answers my question. I just I may have other comments, but I just really quickly needed to clarify that this is unique and an initial response from the county on STRs. And I would ask Commissioner Savas to chime in anytime he feels it's necessary. He has all the history as well. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. And he did turn his light on. Oh, going and then you That's fine. All right, Commissioner Savis. Um, everyone can go first unless you want me to. Why don't you go and then I'll just go right down.

I want to, you know, I appreciate staff putting together this package and um, you know, yes, there is a lot of history and I think Gary reminded me the other day that it was nine policy sessions at the previous

well, two or so iterations of the board. I think in 2017, 18, 19, tried to do something, we never got anything across the finish line. We discussed caps, we discussed the three strikes. Uh we discussed um um fees, you know, and we started out at I think the first fee proposal was $675 or $750. And I think that was uh not wellreceived when we did a lot of public processes uh in those early years where nothing really amount we didn't get anywhere but we did a lot of public outreach. We had this room filled a couple three times. So by far uh there was far more public engagement in that first round going back and forth than there was recently. But still what we've done recently is quite a bit. I'm impressed. So uh kudos to everyone. Um, and the other thing too I will take away from that is that we had a lot of uh representation. It was probably because of the dollar amount. We had a lot of repres from all over the county. Um, not just the mountain and and sure the mountain was a big factor, but we had people all over because some people didn't want to pay the fee or didn't understand it. So, two years ago, we put in in the process this pilot program um is something that we worked on and Caroline and Everett were our staffers that helped put this together. Um I assumed and I I think my colleagues assume that the affidavit process um that we proposed here um would be a viable mechanism to track the bad actors. When I say bad actors, I'm talking about the people that failed to register,

right? Or um I take that back. If they didn't fill an affidavit, you can't go after them. So, it wasn't those who didn't file it. The folks that filed incorrectly or were or not complying with the the code that the affidavit process would hold them to that. And it says here in the packet, and I learned here recently, that well, actually, we didn't do it right. If we wanted to do that, u we need to have it what was it the word done by a um or over anyhow some changes to make it more legit um for for um enforcement of the affidavit. Um we certainly learned that yeah a lot of people registered and now that searchcharge is a viable mechanism. it could be changed up or down for more to provide more. But um you know we anticipated coming back and making changes because there was a lot of things we didn't talk about again we talked we didn't talk about the cap you know uh recently during during this pilot project uh program but we talked about it years earlier about a cap and so what I would like what what I I think the unfortunate part for me is I have we have not learned because we didn't act on the affidavit and have it properly set up we we didn't learn if that is a viable mechanism for some level of enforcement. versus code enforcement. Um, on the mountain, we certainly still in and judging by the emails, there's still confusion, I think, with the TRT, the transient room tax that people think that's something we implemented for STRs, and it's not. It's something that's completely separate. It's been there forever. There's no relationship with it. Our search charge only applies to the rental amount of that particular STR. Um, so we still need to overcome that confusion. So we have a little bit more outreach to do and ideally we get people also from the urban area to be

part of that conversation because again up we went up the mountain we didn't really have that broad range. We're now we're hearing from people that are in the in this area. Uh they're more in the urban area. Um I would like to entertain you know we heard a lot you know what's going to be the cost to code enforcement. What does that really look like? Um and you know if there's a fee attached, what does that look like? And um and then uh try to implement something along three strikes. Um three strikes, you're out. And if we did put a cap on it, I think that's the control. I think that might be the incentive. If there was a cap, it said there's a cap for let's say the mountain area and there's perhaps a cap for, you know, the rest of the county. um that might incentivize people to register and if they're not registered then they're in violation of county code as far as running an STR uh without a permit. So those are just some rough ideas but I think really um and Gary you and I have talked about this. Um uh to me I I you know my experience it would be however we put this together um it would be nice to have it be complete you know how do we make sure that is acted on do we need legal counsel's office involved in the affidavit stuff um what do we need to make this work to make it a a functioning working uh machine if you will as opposed to again a pilot you know I we learned we learned something but We didn't learn learn as much as I thought we would. So, sure. Back to you.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Helm.

Yeah, I I took a boatload of notes uh during the town hall and from various other meetings I've been attending, too. Um but we got an email like all of us got this from Jake um Fulley. Uh, and it I I'm gonna say it simplifies it because it's it is complex, but we need we need to start with a document that gives us a path forward for them to and that's what we heard at the end is just take action already. You know, quit talking about it, do something. Um, but we need to formulate a document with a set of rules that addresses an affidavit. People who are or are not, and it's very easy to look up. All you have to do is go on to VBO or or Airbnb and and they'll pop up and we can find out whether they're actually um registered or not. Um I we did hear overwhelmingly they want to continue the STRs. They just want some limitations um and that the regulations need to be established which is um you know there needs to be a three strikes rule. There needs to be accountability. We need to increase the fee and let and let that pay for uh and a FTE code compliance officer up there if necessary. They're not opposed to that. They they said the fee where we have imposed is so low the the owners of these properties are not even affected. You know, some of them rent their house out for $25,000 a weekend. I mean, our fee is just a blip. And is it is it a phone call, you know, about, you know, 15 20 people in a home? Yeah. But no one's doing anything about it. So, um there should be a density requirement and we're going to have to look at attrition. We're going to have to look at a way to um resolve how many we've let go on up

there. And I I don't know what that looks like, but they they seemed um with their little, you know, their hands. Gary, thank you. That they they thought that that was a good way to do it. At least it will help kind of alleviate and and if we can get some of these on board and paying the fee, maybe some of them will sell their homes and they'll say this is not worth it. Right. So, but I they did say overwhelmingly that they would prefer that, you know, the lot of them are from people who live here, right? And not outside people who don't pick up the phone when there's problems. So, I would say uh we adopt something similar to Telmat County's um STR program, which is not only good, but they actually you can go on their um site and you you can click on the STRs and it will give you the the land the homeowner's address and phone number so that if complaints are made um they can be addressed. So, I'd say that, but we need to fasttrack something um and quit talking about it and let this first document be a give it to them to review and tell us, you know, what kind of changes they want to have made. Um but I would just say that I would like us to get something written up as soon as possible. That includes their concerns. They were loud and clear. It's this is this is not working the way it is. So, um um and I'll go over some of the more details with you, Caroline, and Celia later, but I I I think that this is not

rocket science, but I do I do we do need a new software program that's more user friendly for these people, too. And we all know when we get online to do something and you've spent 45 minutes and it's it's very frustrating. So, um, yeah, I think I'm going to stop there because I think these are just details we could work out in a an actual STR rules and regulations and here they are and but have them be looked at by the people that it affects. Yeah, great comment, Commissioner Shrader.

Oh, well, actually you answered my question because I was going to ask there's got to be other models out there that have been successful and Telmuk is probably just one of them. So Paul, I know that you and Commissioner Shaw have been doing all this work. Did you guys find other models out there? Well, we all did that together, right? Yeah. But but like the Telmouth I'm like, gosh, I'd try and pull up Telmouth right away and take a look and see how that they brought it up too at the at the meeting. They they were the ones who brought it up. So last we checked the Took County had put a pause to their program, but I can double check on that. Okay. Yeah. Because they had they were had run into some issues, but I I can double check. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. It's a sticky wicket. It's always hard because what will happen is that people do get upset because of all the noise and the commotion and things that people aren't being good actors, but then you get the people who are owning the property. Then they'll go on about oh their property rights or you know that. So it's it's I was I was very happy that it was uh Commissioner Savis and she'll took that on. And Diana, it sounds like you've taken a lot of notes. So keep me in the loop. And I I would just say that what I what I hope to see happen is just some sort of document that gives them a starting point just like with the farm bill that just was passed at the state. It's not a perfect document. It can be it can be changed. It can be tweaked, altered, or whatever, but let's let's have a starting.

So you wanted something different than chapter 8.10. Yeah. I Yeah, I think it needs to be um there there needs to be more accountability obviously and there's not right now. Okay. And I've often wondered, however, I'm sorry, chair, just one. Um, you I'm going to look at Dan here, but I don't want to scare him. But, um, Dan can't be scared. You know, I think part of the issue is we just almost wish we could expand code enforcement to include some of these functions, you know, that, but I don't know how we would do that. How much money? We're already understaffed with code enforcement, aren't we, Dan? Even if we were to come up with like a set of policies. Yeah, it's an interesting question.

It's still it's still going to be who are the bodies that are going to be to really It's an interesting question because the issues that you're Let's Let's just back up. We started this discussion in 2019. Yep. I remember and I missed the intro. It's been a long dusty path and there's been a lot of different discussions around what we're going to do and what we can do and can't do and should do and won't do and will do. Um it's it's not all around code enforcement. No, the issues that they're talking about really balance upon two different areas. Code and law. Law is a sheriff's office. Code is enforcement office. And so it's it's almost like you got to think creatively about this new hybrid program that would have yeah

some individual with some sort of an enforcement background that could work with both those entities to kind of convey messages or at least be an ombbudsman for kind of that dialogue with those two entities um and facilitate some of that and that's kind of when you see that it doesn't like I said it doesn't clearly fall like in one different portfolio so which kind ofates the issue you're which is what the idea of an ombbudsman of is intriguing. Yeah, it is.

You know, I want to uh make just a couple comments about this. And first and foremost, I I want to uh thank all the citizens of Welches and Government Camp and and uh Commissioner Savis and Dan Hill and I were all there and it was uh very profound uh very informative and um they took a lot of time to um uh think about their input, gave some great suggestions. So, a big thanks to all those individuals. I this is what I took away from that meeting and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong. We're done talking about it. They want action and they want action now. And and I could sense the urgency in their voices and their concern. And I don't blame them. And I'm not here to kind of debate. I think Paul said it started in 17. You're saying 19. I don't know when it started, but it's been a long process, right? And and I do think right now is the time to really I would describe it as a fullcourt press playing basketball, right? Let's Whoops. Let's get on this. Let's kind of try and move this thing forward. I've done my own kind of personal uh research. Um talked to some folks in uh Long Beach, Washington. They have a big uh short-term rental issue. Talked to somebody actually in the mayor's office for Boise, Idaho. Uh they had to implement policies also some folks in Arizona. And some of the programs actually, you know, will require 30 or 60 or 90day rentals. You know, they don't have all of short-term and and they've learned a lot of lessons along the way. And so I I know you've gathered a lot of that information already and uh formulating this. But I guess what I would just really try and emphasize is um putting a timeline on this. I think people want to know when are we going to see something? And I think the top of that list should be accountability

um and having somebody to respond immediately to their calls, concerns, and complaints. Uh I know Paul mentioned three strikes. I think a lot of times that um you know, things can happen and there's also an ability to compound the fines, right? Hey, there's some grace period. You know, we'll give you this. But if this is a continuing ongoing problem that's causing the neighbors in uproars, then uh perhaps that needs to be an escalation of like you have to deal with the issue at hand. One of the big issues I heard too in the in um up at Welch's was this uh their concern about fires. And I really can't emphasize that enough. Um some of the places have places to have fires outside in the backyard. you know, inspections can make sure those are removed or that they're only propane or whatever whatever the fire marshall, whoever thinks is the best way to save that. It is it is it is um things could be turned upside down uh in that area if we had a fire. And so I think those restrictions are really important. And the other issues that I've kind of seen looking at these other ones is knowing the number of bedrooms, uh, making sure there's there's adequate parking, the limitation on some of those things that tie to it and versus um, uh, really restricting the number of people that are going to be in some of those facilities. And the last thing, another issue that was raised up at Welch's was also uh concerns about overloading septic systems and contamination up there, just having a large volume of people up there. So, those were a lot of the input that I think that we heard and I I would just encourage that we really try and move this along as quickly as we can. And at the top of my list, I just want to reiterate that is trying to get that code enforcement started and ensuring that people are participating

in the program because some are and some aren't. Some are doing a great job, some aren't. So, uh, and really making sure that there's a follow-through on the complaints. So, that's all I had to add. I know Commissioner Savis, I think, had another comment. So, Commissioner H.

Yeah. So, uh, if you will indulge me a little bit and by experience both, uh, well, Dan and Dan and Gary, we were all went through that. Um, it was very tough. And I think what we've learned, I learned out of that. Uh, no disrespect to my colleagues. Um, but, um, a lot of cooks in the kitchen, we couldn't really make up our minds and we wandered. We didn't understand it. And so I think in hindsight and then also taking into account how this is how the is administrated organizationally within I think that needs to be tackled first. I think that's one of the first things that we that we need to do or or staff needs to do. And I'm kind of going back to the memory that of when we tried to launch the Veterans Village and Commissioner Shrader, you and I worked together and we worked with staff and we put that together and as a result of that implementation teams came out and we stepped back and it went on its own, took a life of its own, but we but we had to be there to make it get it all together.

So I I would suggest maybe something like that just to get this started, work with staff that Gary feels are the appropriate staff. uh myself and another commissioner um uh who's interested in this uh work to um put the organizational structure and framework in place come up back to us with recommendations for how we pay for it because when Commissioner Schaw and I worked on this the and getting approval of the board the requirement was no cost to the general fund right not one penny of general fund would go towards this program so that was that was a limitation and and um and I think being mindful of that I I believe we can still do that. I think we can still operate this program and I if it needs phasing and we can phase things in one by one but Craig uh Chair Roberts I agree. Um I think there is action needed and but I think that if we take it in steps to we make sure we get it right and we get the staffing and everything coordinated um to get this going. So what I'm I just suggest maybe that we um assign ourselves a couple of us and work with staff and come back and come back with some proposals to get this implemented um so that it work with legal counsel's office for example and how we get the affidavit aspect right and and enforcement and if there is a way again to come up with a fee and a structure and look at other models um that can enhance the code enforcement element which we heard a lot of uh great, but I think we need to take not baby steps, but we can't do this all at once. If we try to

tackle this elephant all at once, I I don't think we're going to be able to do it. I think that's what happened last time is that we tried to do too much and it just was frustrating for everyone and I don't want to get to that point to where it it it takes a lot of our time and staff time um to put together proposals. So, that's my recommendation. Can I respond or go ahead? Yeah, go ahead. No, go ahead. Um I think that um I guess my response to this and I was asking Emily today I said so how many are there right I didn't have an idea of the numbers right and she said that there's somewhere around 600 is what she had mentioned to me uh is there that many short-term rentals

no more than over a thousand

yeah well you're making my point Emily But my point is this is that if just say you have a thousand, right? Um that uh in order to do enforcement and quality control, just take the time. I mean, look, how many can I do a week as a code enforcement officer? And I mean, this could be years. And I don't think we have years. I I really believe that. You're not probably going to like my answer, but I agree. I like the idea of not having to contribute general fund dollars, but I do believe it's going to take some county staff to help support to get everybody in line in any kind of timely manner. Right? I think this is where we pull everybody together, say this is our problem. this is what we need to do this on the fast track and and um I'm confident we can but it is going to take kind of pulling people together and saying hey for the short term we've got to address this issue for the community out there and make sure that people are being held accountable because one concern I have is if there's people will know if there's accountability or not right and if we're not holding people accountable for the bad actions you know it it will continue to fester and cause problems And so,

so I agree with you, Commissioner. I mean, we have to be kind of methodical about this, but also I I really do think it's a time to kind of say all hands on deck. Let's see if we can address this in in a relatively timely fashion. So, anyway, I know you're probably going, "Oh, great. That's a lot of work." But go ahead, Commissioner.

No, and this is, you know, kind of tags on to that, but the short-term uh this this is from this one guy, which I I think I want to use this as a template. Uh, the short-term rental owners should be expected to fund their own business. A fee or tax should be imposed to cover increased enforcement by code enforcement or by a newly established enforcement entity. Um, it should we we this should and even if it's somebody that's up at the mountain that's close by that is not on the far side of Clakamus County, we I think that we could impose a fee. I don't think that they're going to have a problem with that because they they want enforcement and they're I think they're willing to pay for it because they want that accountability by the homeowners and by the renters. See, and if there are fines and I think I've said it before, when I've rented an Airbnb or VBO, if you break the rules, there's big fines involved, right? So, let's have that as part of this program and then enforce it and it will in turn pay for it. So, I don't know what the right number is and I'll sit down with Mr. Mathwiz over here and try to figure it out. But it it should fund itself. It should not be our code enforcement who's already overwhelmed and and and you know it it should be way easier than that. So, um, yeah, I think I think we can work on something that that would please them. It's not going to make everybody happy, but I think it's going to take care of the bulk of it. So,

yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Gary. And then, uh, Mr. West.

Thank you. So, staff did all of this work in 2019 and 2020. Dan's staff and frankly were demoralized because the prior board could not get to a yes. And frankly, staff said, "We're done." Now, staff works for you. I work for you and I know how important this is to you now and we're we're have looking at it with a fresh set of eyes. So, here's my proposal and yes, Commissioner Savis and I talked before this meeting. I will form the administrators short-term rental task force and I'm asking for two county commissioners to serve on that task force. Just a second. It will include staff from county council, finance, county administration, transportation and development. I'll include tourism, too. I think they should be at the table. I will be there as well. We're going to meet every week for the next four weeks. come back to you with a proposal in uh early June.

That is a full That's my proposal. So I need two of you today to decide which two of you would like to participate. Please. I think we I see three of you. Two of you, Chair Roberts and Commissioner Savis. Yeah, I don't want to bump you. I I I'm happy to be bumped. I just want to make sure that there's input. I mean, I'd love to be on this. I really uh would love to help. Okay, got it. Chair, Commissioner Saturn, you can go for me. Okay, we could all Do you mind? No. Oh, God. No. And and I will say that this board makes decisions. Yeah. We we are responding to citizens who are coming before us with complaints. So, I don't think we'll have any problems

getting across the finish line. Okay. And could I add one thing? And just with that being said, just my apologies to you and staff, you know, for all your hard work and that didn't go anywhere. And I know we're committed to uh following your guys' leadership on this hard work and moving things forward. So anyway, want to say thank you for all that hard work in the past. All right, Gary. Okay, so I don't think you need a motion today, but really we're following option two. Yes. direct staff to determine cost to update, administer the program, bring back to the board uh in 30 days. Yes. Great. That's it. Anything else for that is your last session. You are finished the day for the day, commissioners.

All right. This will conclude our business meeting. Thank you all for joining us and uh until next time. All right.