Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The meeting. Roll call. Commissioner West here. Commissioner. Sarvis. Resident. Commissioner. Helm. Here. Chair. Schrader. Here. Thank you. Gary. Could you please introduce the first agenda item? Yes. Thank you. Chair. First item is county fiscal year 2425 audited financial reports. This is an update for you on the completion of the county's audit for last fiscal year. Presenting as Elizabeth Comfort, finance director with Ashley Austin from Baker Tilly, our vendor. Because the audit committee was not properly noticed, I did invite the public members of the audit committee to attend this meeting today and allow them to ask questions. Chair, if that's okay with you. I see at least one of them is online and Andrew Scott Johnson is here. So we're going to move Scott. We're going to move you into the main panelists. And if you do have a question Scott, just raise your hand. Chat hand if you do. And Andrew will let me know if other public members attend. So with that Elizabeth, please kick it off. Thank you. Good morning. Elizabeth Comfort, finance director for the county. And with me today is our lead auditor, partner with Baker Tilly, Ashley Austin, who is going to present to the high level our audited financial for fiscal year 2425. Okay. Thank you Elizabeth. Good morning everyone. I did have a slide deck. Are you okay? Will it be up here? It's not. Oh, okay. Great. You want to go to the next slide, please? If you just shrink it down since it's in a PDF. Yeah. And just go page down. That'd be great. Okay. I'll go through our agenda. So agenda is just going through your service team, reintroducing those team members, going through the four questions and answers that we think you, as commissioners would want to know about the audit process.

And then a high level discussion on our communication with those charged with governance, which was the audit committee, and we had that discussion last week. You go to the next slide. This is your service team that was responsible for servicing you as Clackamas County. I served as your engagement reviewer, so I have overall responsibility for the engagement. You'll see my personal signature at the end of your opinion. Amanda Moore is the concurring partner. She looks at the financial statements and a few things in our file, and is just responsible for doing that extra quality control review. Kevin Mueller is a director. He assisted with the engagement but also prepared the financial statements on the county's behalf this year. Harvey Wang is an engagement manager, also helped with some delegated engagement, review and supervision of the staff. And Ben Tallinn is an IT manager and responsible for the IT portion of the engagement. If you go to the next slide. So question number one, what does an audit of the county entail. So it's really five different buckets of information that we gather as part of an audit. So the first is that independent verification of accounts and balances. So we're looking at source documentation. We're pulling invoices. We're looking at bank statements. We're pulling check copies. We're asking for additional information where things don't make sense. We're verifying balances with third parties. So confirming cash and debt balances with third parties. We're doing an analytical review of things like your revenue and your expense account, setting an independent expectation, making sure that things meet our expectation. If they don't, we ask questions why and corroborate those differences. And then we perform substantive testing procedures, which is again, just that verification of those balances by looking at source documentation. We also evaluate the effectiveness of internal controls. So we're looking at key controls that if that key control was not in place, that a material error could occur in all significant transaction cycles.

So cycles like your revenue payroll, property tax revenue, disbursements, investments, Treasury, those types of things. We're looking at all the significant key controls in those areas. We're testing for operational effectiveness in areas where we think the controls are operating effectively, and then reporting any control weaknesses that we identify along the way. The third area is testing compliance with federal and state laws. So as Oregon Municipal Corporation, you are required to comply with Oregon minimum audit standards. And we are required to test a variety of state laws, including your budget, adoption process and procurement standards, among others. And then you receive and spend more than $750,000 of federal funding. So we also perform federal grants, compliance testing under the uniform guidance. Go to the next slide. The fourth item is really that technical review of the financial statements. We did assist in preparing the financial statements this year, but we're making sure that the balances that we audited and the transactions that we verify do agree to what's being reported in the audited financial statements, making sure that those financial statements meet all the bells and whistles of gaps, state, legal and away award requirements. Since you do apply for the award certificate each year, and we also want to make sure that that supplementary information is presented accurately. So all that budget to actual information is also considered and tied out. And then finally reporting of audit results. So we had regular check ins and timely contact with Elizabeth and the rest of the finance staff at the county. We had an exit meeting with the audit committee that happened last week, and then we are now reporting to you as county commissioners. So are the financial statements accurate? Again, our audit procedures are performing a risk assessment, making sure that we're identifying those significant risk areas. That includes a slew of procedures including talking to management, looking at controls for effectiveness.

We also perform substantive testing, as I mentioned, and that technical review of the Financial Standards and the results were that you received an unmodified opinion, meaning your financial statements are clean and they're fairly presented in accordance with us generally accepted accounting principles. That's what you want to here. Question number three. Did the county comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. So again we're performing that risk assessment to identify the specific compliance requirements that we're going to test. And then we perform compliance testing over federal grants and state laws. As I mentioned a few slides back. So the results for the Oregon minimum standards, we didn't have any control findings, but there were two compliance findings. One was procurement related. There was a public improvement project that wasn't properly advertised in a newspaper. It was advertised on Oregon buys. But the requirement is that you also include that advertisement in a newspaper. And then there was an overextended in the sheriff's office that was also detailed in note. One of the financial statements were required to call it out. Whenever there's an overextended of a budgetary line item. Otherwise clean opinion results of the single audit. So we did test only one major program this year approximately $52 million. No control findings over compliance reported, and there were no compliance findings. And we tested the health center program cluster just for reference there. And then question number four, did the audit identify any fraud, waste or abuse? Again, part of our procedures are evaluating key controls for those significant balances and transaction cycles. We're brainstorming with our independent team to make sure that we're identifying the risks appropriately, and then interviewing individuals throughout the county to also obtain information throughout our audit process about risk areas that we should focus on. And the testing results uncover no reportable matters of fraud, waste or abuse during the audit process. Just a high level snapshot of our communications with the audit committee. We did hold that audit committee meeting last week.

We did also just want to share a few other items with you that we also discussed with them, in terms of where there are any audit adjustments, there were no corrected audit adjustments. There were two minor uncorrected audit adjustments that we identified, but management passed on posting to their financial statements, which is reasonable, and we are required to just share that with the audit committee and with, you know, difficulties encountered in performing the audit. So no difficulties obtaining information or obtaining access to individuals that we wanted to talk to. And no disagreements with management about an audit or accounting matter. Before I hand it over and ask if there are any questions, just want to acknowledge that the audit is complex. You are a complex county. You have lots of different component units. So just want to acknowledge that we had regular communications with county management and staff throughout the audit process. They were very responsive, fulfilled our request timely, and the tone at the top was one of openness and wanted to hear our concerns and considerations. So thank you again to Elizabeth and her team and open it up to you for questions about separation of duties with Kevin. No. I'm sorry. Is there something else that should be mentioned? Elizabeth? No. Yes. Ashley, I asked you to mention something. Please. Well, I thought I did mention it, so I did mention at the beginning Kevin Mueller is a director, and he helped with the overall supervision of the engagement. But he also helped prepare the financial statements on the county's behalf. And you issued an RFP. Baker Tilly responded to that. And Kevin led our process of preparing those financial statements and was also part of the audit team. Thanks for that. We did not perform any. All right. Oh, there's construction in finance. Oh my goodness. Well I thought it was my tinnitus after again. Okay. But we do want to be clear that Kevin did not perform any of the review of the financials. So there is

a separation of duties there because he is preparing the financial document but was not reviewing it. Right. Well, colleagues, we're going to have to move on through some interesting sound issues. We're going to fix that in a second. Then he stopped. Yeah. Just tell him not to to wait. Go ahead with your questions. All right, colleagues, I see a red light from Commissioner Sarvis. Yeah. Wait for Elizabeth. Let's wait for her to come back. And then I know Commissioner Helm, and I'll remind Mr. Johnson online. If you do have a question, would you raise your chat hand and we'll call on you as well? Great. Thank you. Gary. So we're just going to pause a moment, please. What are they doing over there and find it other than finance, what are they preparing? I'm not sure. We'll ask Elizabeth. I find out when we come back in here. Yeah. So. Thanks, Elizabeth. But I have to ask, what are they doing in there? So, yeah, it's a good question. Our department has taken over half of the finance floor that we've had over there. And so they're actually putting up a wall to separate the two departments. Okay. We're sorry we had to interrupt their work. So they have plenty to do. But I do have two colleagues. Let's go ahead. Commissioner Sarvis then Commissioner helm. Yeah. Kind of do this every time there's an audit. And I say this because I know a lot of people watch our meetings, and at I and I have a question at the end here.

So my comment is that and this is not a criticism observation that what the public thinks of an audit, successful or not, is, you know, this annual audit, for example, this one here in front of us is not analysis of our business practices, whether they're good or bad or where they're in the red or black. It's not a matter of necessarily policy guidance is really the fiscal controls and answering the questions and everything. So I just want to put that out there that some people think that an audit is like finds everything and it does not, you know, that's not your charge. So so that said, I do have a question. And you know, whoever can answer it of the two of you is fine. And I think I know the answer, but it'd be nice to hear from you. Is that last? So earlier this year, we passed an ordinance to put in the financial tools, if you will. The 30 year forecast and a number of things. Part of your work is not analyzing our adherence to that. Is that correct? The 30 year forecast? Well, no, that that changed in our ordinance that all the components in our ordinance sustainable long term, but budgeting all the factors that we put in that ordinance that we approved earlier this year are not things that your auditing firm looks at. Well, just a minute. So Baker Tilly does review the ordinances that you put into place. And we we are responsible for reviewing the minutes of all the things that you talk about each and every meeting. And we glean out of there things that can help us during our risk assessment process, and also things that we might need to key in on from a risk perspective. That ordinance occurred earlier in 2026, so it was a subsequent event. It wouldn't be something that would come up in the 2025 audit, but we could we will consider that

as part of our risk assessment procedures for fiscal 26. Okay. So that's thank you for that. And I'll just use that as a just to just say this. And that is you know, my concern is that the interpretation of that ordinance. And you know, I know we're talking through that and we'll possibly go back and fix it. But when we move forward with that, I think it was we are envisioning that that 30 year forecast would show us in the black for each of those years up until the end of that period of time. And now it seems, apparently, that we've got because of some financial decisions that have been made, and maybe we unwind those, we're going to make adjustments, but we have more years in the red than we that I ever anticipated. I was thinking maybe 1 or 2, if that. But my concern now is that there's more years in the red, potentially, as I'm hearing than than there ought to be. So I'm hoping that that we can shine a light on that or remedy that. But I just want to put that out there that your work is the prior year not going forward. Right? Yes. And that is accurate. And in 2026, we will consider a portion of that during our risk assessment process. Part of the thing that we have to consider is whether the county can continue on for more than 12 months. So that would be something that we would look at as part of that procedure. Yeah. And my closing thought and I'll stop here. And that is and that that the media is definitely looking at a lot of local governments and their, their financial plights as a result of expenses outpacing revenues. So I don't want to be in the paper. That's all I have. Chair, back to you. All right. Commissioner Hill, so this is thank you for the presentation. This is kind of a newbie question because I've been through the budgeting process once. This is my first auditing process. Explain to me the correlation between the budget and the audit, like you're going through. And your checking to make sure the budget

numbers are entered correctly and all of that. But it really doesn't just explain the correlation between the two for me. So there are two procedures that we perform. So the first procedure is under organ minimum standards. And we're required to make sure that the budget was adopted appropriately, that you publicly notified within 5 to 30 days. You entered it into a newspaper twice. You advertised it online within the right period, that it was presented appropriately, that it was adopted by you before June 30th. Then we take that adopted budget, and we tick and tie the numbers that are included in there to the audited financial statements in the supplementary information. So we're making sure that the adopted budget that's legally adopted is now being included in the audited financial statements appropriately. And then we're reporting on if any of the information, if any, of the current year expenditures are over that legally adopted budget. We're not going through an individually line, item by line item in your system determining that the budget has been entered appropriately. However, we are taking that legally adopted budget and comparing it to current year expenditures and reporting any over expenditures. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner West, do you want to say anything? No, no. My understanding of this is this is largely the framework for budgeting. And in other words, how you're following the rules and procedures and concise, not an actual analysis of the numbers that we go through in the regular, regular process. This is making sure we're following the internal structural rules of best financial practices. Correct. Is that for for the budget process, we're just looking at to make sure that you're following the legal requirements of Oregon, minimum standards, that you are following that legal adoption process appropriately. We're not analyzing the numbers that you use in the budget. We are simply taking the information that you put into the legally adopted budget and putting those

in by fund in your audited financial statements, and then reporting on if anything's overextended. Okay. Thank you for that clarification for the public administrator Schmidt, I think we can thank you both, ladies, for the work that you do. Elizabeth, I particularly enjoy working with you and your your colleagues because you've kept us in the black so far. Knock on wood. So thanks for coming today. And, Administrator Schmidt, what is next? Very good. Thank you very much. The next item is Recovery campus regular monthly update. Cindy Becker, project coordinator in the county administrator's office, will present. Good morning. I'm going to just take you to the attachment of your documents so we can I can just give you the update as to what we've been doing since the last update. So in the area of property development and construction, we are continuing to go back and forth with with Shippo State Historical Preservation Office because we because as I said in the past, the building is more than 50 years old. There are some things that are required, and it looks like some of the things that we had offered were not enough. So we're looking to see if there's any salvageable material from this, from the existing school. And we're looking and we're working with different companies to talk about potential disposition. So it's taking a little longer than we had hoped, but we're confident we will get the get the memorandum of agreement and just taking a little bit more time. So if anyone would like to keep any of the salvaged materials, just let me know and we'll be sure to deliver a window to your door.

So the project was approved by the Design Review Committee. And so that was another of the hurdles after the after the zoning, we also had to have all the all the plans and designs reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. That happened about two weeks ago. And we last week we met with for health and facilities to really identify who's got responsibility for what. And so because it's a county owned building. So basically the short version is that for will be responsible for the day to day custodial and small maintenance. And then facilities will be responsible for any of the larger maintenance of the systems. We don't expect that to be an issue since they're all going to be new systems initially, but that will be part of the lease agreement. But we wanted to make sure that both parties were understanding and accepting of their respective responsibilities. So we've got that done and we'll add that to the lease. Any questions? Okay. Let's go to funding. So a couple of things have happened since we last met. I'm chair Roberts and Gary Schmidt. Schmidt. Excuse me. Gary, I met with three counties. It was Marion, Yamhill and hood River. River. The. The conversation was focused on whether or not those counties were interested in buying beds, particularly residential treatment beds or a bed, actually, from the recovery campus. This, as you know, with the juvenile department, we currently by beds in Marion County. So it's not that unusual to do. I think in this situation maybe, I don't know that it's happened very much. And we know that counties use beds and other counties, but they don't always buy those beds.

And so the conversation was really about whether or not those respective counties were interested in buying a bed. And as part of buying a bed, they would be doing upfront payment of $250,000 in addition to buying the beds. And so at this point, I don't think you've heard anything. No one's grabbed and said, yes, I want to do it. I think they're all thinking about it. And so I just wanted to let you know about that and we'll we'll make it work. If they meet the the terms that we laid out, it's a little bit of a dance, if you will, because we want to make sure that the beds are available, obviously, to Clackamas County residents. And if someone, let's say a County X were to buy a bed, but they didn't need the bed, but we needed the bed, how would that work? So as I said, there's some dancing. I mean, it can work and we'll make sure that happens. But at this point we haven't heard anything positive from either any of the three counties that they want to pursue that. So that's just a heads up for you questions. Okay. So not seeing any lights, I hope things with ship will go through because I have worked with ship on a bunch of numerous issues, the state Historic Preservation Office. Yeah. So let me know if there's any artifacts that we need to, you know, need to incorporate into the building, you know? Yeah, we will do that for sure. Yeah. Just, you know, like the courthouse or it's the modern building. But there might be something that can be used that would. Yeah. In terms of the sex. Yeah, yeah. We have someone coming in and taking a look at whether there is some things. So just I just want to go back on funding. Our plan is to bring you a contract in May before a budget. And we will have a dollar amount in that contract.

The the team, the four team is working on the budget. And, you know, there are some things that the county has added as part that were not envisioned when Ford did their bid. So they're working on ensuring that that happens. For example, the kitchen is the commercial, kitchen is another $400,000 on top of what they bid. So they're working that in. There are a couple other things in there as well. Just because we want to make sure that they align the hard equipment with what the county uses in other buildings. And so so we're working the four team and facilities is working together to make sure that we have like standards. So but the team is bringing in the budget. And what we expect to happen is we'll bring you the contract and we will be incorporating the grant from the Oregon Health Authority, will be incorporating the grant from the legislature. And we'll make I don't know that we'll have the excuse me, I don't know. They will have the federal grant tied down. So we may have to come back for that. And then the actual the contractor watch construction is in the process of bidding out the contract. And so if there are changes to that, we may have to come back to you and subsequent date, but we want to get the contract in place beforehand so that they can start doing the demolition work and everything else. So there may be some holding patterns, if you will, in the contract, but we didn't want to wait because that would delay the entire project. Questions about that? What? Why is there a hold up in the federal funding? Is it just because of the wheels of government? They have an application process, you know, and so we just have to go. So it's not that we that we aren't get the money, but we have to go through their process. And then the lottery has the guidelines. And so there's various processes that we have to go through. So we know from the Oregon Health Authority

that that money is coming in, which is a question of when. And then the lottery has to go through some things. So it's just, you know, as we started with this project, we've been doing several parallel paths at the same time. And so this isn't maybe going in the logical sequence we would all love, but we are moving ahead on all fronts. Okay. Thanks so much. The last piece I wanted to talk about is community outreach, and we have a community meeting scheduled for June 3rd at 6:00. Doors will open at 530. We are mailing and delivering invites to residents and businesses within 1000ft of the site. The meeting will be held at the Armenian Church across the street from the site. The building itself is not. The current building is not in good shape to hold a meeting, so we arranged to have the meeting at the at the Armenian Church. We will have poster boards that show the designs of the campus. We'll also have a timeline for will be there. Members of the architect team will be there. So we'll be able to answer. A lot of the questions we couldn't answer two years ago was a two years ago. So and I know that there's you know obviously questions about safety. So we've got a lot of information to share with people we'll have leave behind for them. And you know, we hope the community comes. And then the groundbreaking for the for the site is July 29th. That would be at 10:00 Am and more to come on that. We're currently working with various folks to make sure that we invite everybody, and then we're looking at the speakers and how we're going to do the run of show, but that's underway. Anything else? Any other comments or questions? Commissioner. Question regarding the collaboration with surrounding counties and beds.

I've had conversations with Mayor Wilson on that issue. Is there and I know he's coming to speak to us to about collaborations and finding ways to work together regionally. SHS and the Oversight Committee, which I represent Clackamas for, is also very much focused on looking at regional solutions. Counties, of course, want to protect their funding also and not throw it into a black hole or a money pit. We want to make sure it goes to like truly regional solutions. Were they just not was it an issue of no, we don't need it. No, we don't see a need for do we know the reasoning behind not looking to collaborate with the campus? Do we have any more details on that? So I think and Gary may want to provide some more information, but I think that the we we use other counties resources and they use ours. I mean, because we have federal money, we can't just say, you know, we can't put a fence around Clackamas and say it's only for Clackamas residents. So that happens routinely, particularly in the metro area. I think the question is whether or not you want to pay money in advance to reserve a bed, okay. And that's probably the difference. Okay. Maybe that's another further conversation with Mayor Wilson, specifically the city, if he's looking to find partners and when and if it makes sense. My other question is, is what kind of conversations are happening with Kaiser? I know that they don't have looking to do financial resources necessarily, but beyond, since it's not financial, what creative ways are they thinking because they came to approached me also and said, hey Commissioner, we really do want to be a part of this. They said, we don't have a lot of funding, but maybe there's other ways we can help. Have they alluded at all to what that creative, wonderful support would be outside of financial support? Well, Mary did meet with them and correct me if I'm wrong.

They they they have talked about wanting to be creative and they talked a little bit about the community, their community benefit funds. We are in the process of forming again, parallel tracks now that we've got the construction underway. Mary and I are pulling together kind of subgroups to look at things that are going to impact the community, for example, and support employment, transitioning, working with, with public safety. There are things that we want to make sure by the by the time the campus opens, that all the different program touches are in place. And one of the areas that we're looking at is hospital discharges and how that works. And so we are going to have a subgroup specifically working with Providence and Kaiser around how what that relationship should be, what their expectations are, what ours are, what forward is. And so that will be an opportunity for them to to kind of jump in if they want to. Some of the things I've talked about or thought about is that, and I think that this may be a later phase within the campus, but that medical type respite discharge issues. That that partnership to try to reduce the amount of people using medical resources of frequent fliers that aren't getting the care they need. And I've always talked about some level of hospice and long term care where people either get that later stage care that they need if they chronically deal with homelessness issues, and then also nobody dies alone. So there's some level of somebody to transition at that into stage life issues to somewhere within our recovery model. And maybe that's where they can be helpful. All of these are now just visionary and a little bit in that we're talking about it. I don't know how you do that without money, but I started this project. We did start a project without much money and here we are now. So I would just be curious what that is. Always kind of wondering how those conversations

have been developing regarding how our medical systems would understand their need to partner with this. I know that they have real pressures on them right now, and real financial issues with our hospital systems. So yeah, I'd be I'd be curious to see how that develops. Well, and I think I'm to that point, I think again, we need to look at the recovery system as a whole, because there may be opportunities in the system versus just at the site. And then we also have the undeveloped area that in the future, if there are some funds, there's about two acres there, there's opportunities there. So I think it's a question of saying kind of laying out the vision, certainly from the board on what your vision is and obviously then starting to dial for dollars. But I think, again, it's important that we look at the whole recovery system because we do have recovery housing that is being developed through the housing Authority and some of the sales of some of the scattered sites. So I think it would be good maybe to have just a separate conversation on that with you and Marion, some of the other folks, to see what are the possibilities today and then what would be needed in the future. One last thing. That other component that we're talking about, were we freed up funding for now, our first low barrier shelter. And I know that we've tried to find location sites somewhat close to that Portland Clackamas County border. We're trying to be a little more central in our location. And I'm curious how that also just want to keep a pulse on that, because it's not on the campus. However, I do feel like it's going to be very closely connected to and maybe just a little bit outside the campus. And so just understanding where we're at with that and then how that's going and how that will play into these, I kind of consider it part of phase one. Phase two, even though it's not on the six acres. Well, there are some places that we expect to get probably more referrals than most. For example, the stabilization center care, the caring place, the shelter would be another place where we would expect to get more referrals.

And one of the subgroups that we're looking at right now is that how we do information sharing, because that's really critical, particularly when you have the federal 42 CFR, how do you do that in a way that doesn't require the individual to repeatedly, you know, telling their story? How do we well, you know that. And so that I think will also facilitate just in the system. How do we get information, how do we share it and how do we help people move in the system? And then the other piece of that before Mary, we are one of the other subgroups that we're going to be putting together is a communications and outreach. How do we let the public know where to go for what. So they're not calling around 17 different places, and how do we let our providers know how to access this. So that will be part of the next step. Is that going to be just like kind of expanding the use of Cha to be able, are we going to do like a super chore? I don't know, like but because some of this gets on to like now you're talking about like actual like care and treatment and getting placement appropriate, appropriate placement. I don't know, chores, housing related. Right? I don't know if it's a chore function or are we expand that or do we have more than one number? That kind of one number serves all is kind of best in my opinion, where it's super streamlined and easy, but I guess that's a different conversation. I'd be interested to what your thoughts are. Married? Sure. Mary Rumba director. So just going back to the the low barrier shelter, you know, we're a little delayed in the contract with Metro, so I'm pretty anxious to to land that so that we can be back in front of you. Because I do think that will begin informing sort of our process, as we've talked just theoretically about the 7 million, which is like if somebody is like, oh my gosh, we have just the best location and it's ready to, you know, it's really turnkey, ready to rock and roll. That would be great. We probably we don't really expect that. So are we really looking more for like a village type model. So I think that's still all the conversation to be discussed. You know, I think, you know, I've been at the county for a long time, 25 years.

And periodically we talk about like this, just one like one number that people can call. And I think in concept, it's a beautiful concept. It just means that you'd have to have staff who just have such deep knowledge of all the pieces you can. We can certainly train to all the county pieces, but there's so much that we connect to around our community based organizations. So I think it's an important question. Commissioner West, I think I think we need to continue to grapple. We really want people to get to the right front door the first time. And so that's why making sure that our recovery oriented system of care, the continuum that we have, those important connections. So even if somebody starts at the caring place and we realize actually what they need is a recovery campus, that there's an easy pathway to get folks there. Mary, have we thought about the the nurse navigation, because has been so successful in augmenting that which is already working within our emergency response system and that and we've that's super that's a great success. The nurse navigation. And we thought about utilizing them for place for help placement and triage. I think certainly they are going to be a key, key participant and making sure that they understand the resources so they're able to actually I mean, that's a great suggestion. And I think people do they call different numbers for depending on what their their need is. So I think we need to we'll need to continue to really unpack that and figure out the best, the best model for getting folks where they need to be the first time. And then any thoughts on where we're at with Kaiser and Providence and any I know they have their own real challenges and the current environment, but do you have any updates on that? I mean, Kaiser, it was a really, you know, promising conversation in the sense that they really want to connect around the community benefit. So folks who are not connected to to care and or don't have coverage for care, I think Providence, frankly, has the same requirement around the community benefit.

They continue to be at the table for our, you know, task group that we meet every other month. And as Cindy noted, we have the subgroups that we're going to start kicking off here soon. They'll be part of it. So I mean, they're not I think we need to be realistic. They're not going to be ponying up a check for us. But there are critical partner especially we want to avoid folks going to their emergency rooms for withdrawal management when we can actually get them to to an actual bed. So I think there will be a referral partnership for sure, and potentially a community benefit for folks who find themselves without some type of coverage. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That's all my questions. Good ones. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right Gary what's next. All right. Thank you very much for coming. Next item is fairgrounds, multi-purpose buildings, special public works fund loan and intergovernmental agreement amendment. Dan Johnson, director of transportation and development, well present. Make sure I keep his name straight. Vice chair, Schrader and commissioners. Nice to see you this morning. Dan Johnson, director for DTD. First, a little bit of history. Just kind of set the stage for the discussion this morning. If you recall, the fairgrounds is replacing their multi-use building. The Board of County Commissioners, at one point in time, I signed them funding from Arpa dollars and other funding sources to ensure everybody knew their roles and responsibilities around those finances. The county entered into an IGA with the fair board because we're separate entities, basically, again, to clarify roles and responsibilities on who is doing what with those dollars and the purpose of those dollars. In July of this last year, we came back in front of the Board of County commissioners

with interest in applying for additional funding through Business Oregon to the tune of $2.5 million. I'm here to share with you. We were granted that. And as we looked at advanced and secure those funds, it's important for us to modify the IGA to acknowledge these additional dollars that are coming in number one, and also acknowledge the commitment that the Fair Board has to pay for the debt service for these particular funds that we'll be receiving, because the county has to receive them on their behalf. So essentially, in the back of the materials that you have is an illustration of one, the application. There's the amendment and there's also the Business Oregon summary of award that was provided. And just to briefly talk about elements of the IGA, essentially, the Fair board gives authorized transient lodging tax that gets distributed out to those entities on an annual basis. Essentially, what this IGA requires is that a portion of those transient lodging tax dollars that are held back are sufficient enough to cover the annual debt service for the loan itself, which is about $250,000 annually. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. I'm not seeing any lights, but I'm going to ask Dan. I know I was at the meeting with your colleague in the back there when they were talking about the shortfall, and this was your way of making the effort to make sure they got what they needed to finish the structures that correct. It is most definitely a step in the right direction. Yes. Okay. Are they going to be able to fully complete it with the funds that we are working collaboratively with them right now to advance that, to ensure it gets completed on time? Yeah. Thank you. Because I think that, you know, they they're volunteers. So they need the professional help that you folks give them to maintain this and move this forward. It was really eye opening. You know, I finally I had that

same epiphany when I was at the rodeo. It's like, I don't know how to put on a rodeo. I don't know how to organize this. And the same thing. They don't do these kind of construction activities on a daily basis. Not not at all. We're going to bring our particular skills to this problem. We're going to get solved. Okay. Thank you so much, Dan. Thank you so much. Okay. So we are going to work with Kenny administration and get this added to the consent agenda. Oh I'm sorry. Oh no. Keep going. But you have two more lights. So we're going to get this topic out of the consent agenda if the board doesn't have any additional questions. So with that I'll answer to you. Answer. All right. Let's see. How about now I first start with Commissioner West and then move on to us. I go back and forth between the two of you. Commissioner West yeah. I just remember getting kind of frantic lobbying from the fair board. Oh, yeah, I'm sure I was there. The meeting? Yeah. And and you've stepped in and kind of sounds like, stabilize things to get us to get the project done and to and to get things on track. Do you feel like we're on track? And the concerns are alleviated and we're moving forward to complete the project? That is the intent. There's still a discussion going on about roles and responsibilities. We're ensuring one of the things that was somewhat of a disconnect was kind of the role and responsibility of, for example, construction management. The board at the time really desired for that project to be under contract to the fair board, not through the county. And so we've taken more of an active role in that, and we're working more collaboratively with them to make sure. Steven Bloomer, I'm sure, you know, from facilities there's a lot of capital construction. We've done a lot of capital construction with him for our transportation maintenance building is taking a more active role and kind of reviewing change orders and things like that to ensure their reasoned and adequate and necessary. And then there have been some cost escalations. You know, you all know the market that we live in right now. I mean, gas at $5 a gallon right now.

And so we're dealing with some of those issues right now. But again, this this money is vital in getting us to that end result to get this thing completed and and open. I just I know it's not easy to always get a project done, especially in Oregon. Yeah. And I trust your ability. I've watched Nancy's with the courthouse and y'all's work in these big projects and actually, like, it's complicated and there's a skill to it, and I don't know how to do it, and I know, so I'm just I'm hoping we're hoping to bring a level of support and our expertise to help guide this, to get it done for the good of the county. I think that's the track you have us on, and I trust that, you know, you know exactly where we're at, where we're going. So I guess that's kind of the gist of my question. I'm not saying that all barriers are gone yet and that we won't have some issues. I just was concerned that it might have got a little bit off the rails, because there was just a lack of level of experience on managing this size of project. Am I wrong? I just want to make sure that, well, I don't think, I think I think everybody was well intentioned, you know, in their role. Totally believe that. It's just something I mean, some things are more complicated than others. And people believe that development and development is difficult. Totally. And it's challenging and it's a specialized training. And yes, we are stabilizing this. I wouldn't be bringing this before you if we didn't think we had things under control and moving in a positive direction. Perfect. Thank you. Great to know, Commissioner Sarvis. Yeah, a few questions. I'll start off with. Let's just talk about the overall status of the project. It's due to be completed. I believe it's October of this year. Yeah. Okay. And the steals going up right now if you've not been there by the fairgrounds recently, but it's. Yeah, it's actually vertical now and things are moving. Yes. All right. And getting back to the cost or potential overruns. What's that looking like right now I don't have an.

I don't have an exact number for you because what the numbers we're looking at are, are the change orders proposed. And so that's a discussion I have to have with Steven Bloomer and also Brian Crowe down at the Fair board to kind of roll through those change orders. Right now they're reasonably manageable. But there's some like there's also some we want to revisit in all honesty, some and see if we can get some adjustments on some of that. So I don't have an I can't tell you a number of the top of my head right now. What I'm kind of getting at is just the financials as I read the material. Obviously, the agency in this case the fair board is the ultimately supposed to carry a minimum balance. Right. And yet it also was a guarantee to the county repayment. Correct. Right. So is there a scenario. And as I read this, it looks like there is a scenario where in which if they don't have the depleted all their funds minus the two and they're holding a 250, and yet there's still a debt to be paid. How is that handled? If there's an overrun in which they're not able to compensate the county timely? So that that's an interesting question, because that's a question that's predicated on the fact it's it's margins. For example, when we talk about the number and the amount of debt service on an annual basis, I'd like to look at the coverage of the current funding that they're currently. And so when you look at the numbers that we have now, and I cannot remember the exact number, but I think they get on average, I want to say 600 plus thousand a year in TLT revenue. I believe that to be accurate. And so when we're looking at like a debt service, and if the service was, for example, like $550,000, that wouldn't be sufficient coverage in my mind. So I don't I the world could turn upside down tomorrow and transient lodging tax could be reassigned readjusted. I don't see that happening.

In fact, we're working with Brian down at the fair board. He actually made us aware of additional funding that's going to be coming from the state. So additional TLT revenue, they'll be seen. We've also got other backstops. They've and it's one of the when you look at the cash flow down there, that's one of the concerns we have about getting making sure that building gets completed. Because a lot of the revenue that they're getting outside of this TLT revenue is from renting the facilities. And so you can't just you can't just go back to the problem and say, I want you to value engineer this thing so low that you can barely get occupancy because then you can't you can't rent it for its purpose. And so a lot of the money is that they're getting and they're working on, on their day to day operations are really around the rental revenue that received from the rental of or certain festivities they put on on a daily basis, and they actually do fairly well in that revenue stream as well. All right. Thanks. Commissioner helm. So regarding the project management part of it, we kind of come in in midstream then to this or have we been involved since the beginning? We have always availed ourselves as needed. But we're taking a more kind of assertive role in the desire. We want to look at all the change orders that are coming through okay. Because change orders can make an entire project go underwater so quickly. And some are and some I don't want to make. I want to make sure this discussion isn't around fault because that is around a market. It's around the these may be issues with things that were left out of design plans, and so it isn't necessarily our issue to cover those and maybe the architect or the other contractor to cover those things, but it's the knowledge about looking at those change orders to be able to kind of determine, okay, where one does it need to happen, and then two, where are we at in regards to who's whose dime is this change order on, etc.. So and Stephen's got a lot of familiarity with that. And I've heard I've heard contractors say under their breath, we make all of our money on change orders. That's where they make their margins.

So it's like, yeah, it worries me just a little bit, but I'm glad that we have a second set of eyes on it. And I think that's really important, especially for a project this big. And it is the county's, you know, not the county's. It is the county's. It's our asset. The it is our asset. Yeah. Well it's interesting I can make one comment just with this to that. Yes. It's our asset. But the the fair board tends to want to be pretty autonomous. And I think in this case, as you said, there's this kind of a project is more complex. I think that they. I'm not not saying it's bad, but I'm glad the county is now involved with the level of expertise you have and push pulling a development forward, because they actively came to speak to us. Diana knew that to order to help them. So I hope that relationship work understands. Like I said, we own the whole fairground. Like I said, it's our responsibility to and I do not believe this is the last discussion you're going to have regarding funding out there. So there will be additional ones. We're having talks right now, but that's to come in the future. More question, Commissioner West, is it on time? Because I mean it's like it's been a long time. And then we have another we have the big event the fair coming up in August. Yeah. But it won't be done by August. Quite by then there's been some delays. Okay. Some of those delays are outside of their control okay. And so I think they were very hopeful to have it open for the fair this coming summer. And that's on. And that's not going to happen. That's unfortunate. That's that's lost revenue. It's a bummer. And it's but it is all you can do is, you know, dive into the numbers and dive into the project and you get done as quickly as possible. And they're getting a whole bunch of rodeo upgrades to. But that's separate from us, right? That is separate. They've got a tourism grant for some updates to the bleachers that are out there. There's still that that is another project that's got hit with inflationary impacts for the project.

So we are working with them as well. Okay. Thank you. And I say we we as ourselves finance etc. we're all working hand in hand with they definitely need the county support. And hopefully the rodeo board is getting along with the fair board. At this point, I don't know, I don't I don't even know. I'm sorry I been here too long. I know where all the bodies are buried. Colleagues. Any other questions? Nope. Seeing? None. Gary. What's next? So we're going to add this to this Thursday's business meeting agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Next advisory board and commission appointments. Andrew. Go ahead please. Madam chair, the Community Road Fund Advisory Committee currently has five openings. Recruitment open to the public in January 2026 and also closed in January 2026. Five applications were received and five are recommended for appointment. The recommendation is as follows Lori Freeman Swanson to a second term ending June of 2028. Marjorie Stewart to a third term ending June of 2028. Elana Petrovsky to a first term ending June of 2028. Julie Gassner to a first term ending June of 2028. And Roy Alcorn to a first term ending June of 2028. The board could site other candidates or require further recruitment. Madam chair, thank you. Colleagues. Any questions? No. Jerry, move that. We approve the slate as read. Second. Okay, so Commissioner West has made the motion, and Commissioner Helm has seconded. Clerk. We please call the poll. Commissioner Sarvis, high commissioner West, high commissioner helm. Madam chair, I motion passes 4 to 0, madam chair. Thank you so much. All right, let's see. I think we give you the board business meeting agenda review next. Yes. Thank you. Review of your board

business meeting agenda for this Thursday, April 30th, 2026 at 10 a.m. you will have public communication, a presentation proclaiming April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. Consent agenda for the Board of County Commissioners and for Water Environment Services. If you have any questions on these items, would you please let me know and I will answer them for you or have staff in the room to answer them for you on Thursday. The final item today is Commissioner Communications, and you do have a lunch event coming up here shortly. And we have a hard stop at 1115. But we do have some time. So colleagues, is your wish just to do some communication and keep it so we know that Commissioner Helm is going to be speaking at the County Business Alliance. So Commissioner Sarvis yeah, I don't have I think I can hold my comments till Thursday. Okay. Commissioner West, any comments? I'm going to hold my comments for Thursday. I was very heartened and appreciated the updates that we got today, and especially around the recovery campus and really substantive conversation with the fair board. So good job to our staff for bringing that professional work and expertise to those critical projects. And the rest of the stuff I have to say, I will just say till Thursday, thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Well, thank you, and I'm going to keep it brief to I just want to make one comment. One of the privileges is to sit up here with these with these colleagues. I sincerely hope that they are successful in being back on this dais in the near future, because I have found them to be honorable, decent, fun colleagues to work with who put their noses to the grindstone and get the work done. Commissioner Sarvis is our on finance and transportation, Commissioner helm finance, economic development. And we have our our health care guy here who has really, fundamentally helped us pull together a whole recovery center that will be a model for the rest of the region.

So thank you for letting me say nice things about you. I care about all three of you, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed, so it looks as if Commissioner Helm hasn't had her chance. Thank you. Well, I, Commissioner Sarvis, passed, but we. I will just say we visited Allied Technologies yesterday. We had a great site visit down in Wilsonville. She just left. But I wanted to thank Laura Edmonds for setting that up. And to both Thomas and Don for giving us the tour yesterday. Fascinating facility. Yeah, it was it was very well. We saw the video right, a couple of months ago. Last month or a month. Yeah. So it was seeing it all in person just gives you a whole new perspective. And we want to keep places like this in mind for potential growth in our county. And you know, as we ask them what their needs were. And I think we have an idea of, of, you know, what we need to do as commissioners and stuff to, to help them. So anyway, I just wanted to thank Laura for setting that up for us. Yeah. She's fantastic. Yes. Let's give a shout out to Laura to for all the good work she does for even on. Okay. All right. Gary, there's nothing else. So nothing until this afternoon. I believe we can adjourn. And thank you, Commissioner Savas, for taking over this afternoon. As I have another commitment I have to be at. Okay. We are back. While we were. Waiting for the screen to come up, it's live. All right, Gary, we now reconvene the board of county commissioners. Gary. Thank you. So Chair Roberts is out of the office today. Vice Chair Schrader is out of the office

this afternoon for your board rules. The next commissioner, in order of seniority, becomes the chair. That is, Commissioner Sarvis will chair the afternoon sessions. There is a quorum present. Roll call. Commissioner West here. Commissioner helm here. Chair Sarvis present. All right. Your first policy session today is 2026. State legislative session summary presenting is Tony, director of public and government affairs. And Trent Wilson, government affairs manager. Go ahead please. Thank you. Thank you. Gary good afternoon, commissioners. I am Tony Hollywood, director of public and government affairs. And with me is Trent Wilson, government affairs manager. We're here to provide an informational update on the 2026 state legislative session that recently adjourned. And we entered this short session with two main priorities one to request funding for the recovery campus and two, to protect the county's budget from budget reductions. We were successful on both counts. First, I'd like to thank you, commissioners, for your support, your input and efforts to help us deliver another successful short session. And as you review the especially the executive summary of PGS report, you'll see a more than 70% success rate on topics and bills that our lobby team engaged and tracked related to county services. Our long standing success happens because of the incredible partnerships we build and maintain with all the county departments, and together we tracked for this session nearly 200 bills to make sure that the county's agenda could be achieved. So I want to say thank you to all, to every director and all the county staff who helped us accomplish these goals. I also want to thank Northwest Public Affairs, who supports us in Salem. And finally, I want to thank Trent, Jamie Lorenzini and Donna Hockey, who who make up PGA government affairs team.

So with that, I'm going to pass it over to Trent, who will cover a few details of our report, and then we'll leave plenty of time for any questions you may have. Thank you Tony. Good afternoon commissioners. Really close to this. My goal here today is to hit a few of the high points. I do not plan to go through all the bills one by one, so that we have plenty of time for questions here at the end. I want to continue this list of appreciation also to the directors and the staff who support us in our Salem advocacy in Salem. I also want to call out a special appreciation to the Association of Oregon Counties. We do a lot of work with them, and I just want that to be known that we really do lean on their support, and they have a great team right now. And then, of course, I want to thank the Clackamas County Caucus that are those legislators who represent the various geographies of Clackamas County. They are a great team. I really do appreciate them. They take our calls, they take our meetings, and they reach out to the county when they have questions about bills that they are encountering in committee or with their colleagues, or that they're voting for on the floor. So we have a good partnership with them. And it is because of the county caucus or the Clackamas caucus that we are receiving at the Clackamas County $5 million for the recovery campus. And I want to give special thanks to Representative April Dobson, who was our sponsoring legislator, to submit the capital request form and to the system this year. So she was the primary sponsor of that because the project is within her district. But really, it was the whole Clackamas caucus that came together and supported this project. And just to emphasize that very few new projects that were introduced into the session this year were funded because of how tight funding was. And so for this project to come forward, I think it speaks really to the quality of our legislators that represent Clackamas County and the quality of the project that we are putting forward to the legislature. So those two things combined, I feel, really led to success for this request. I also want to thank Commissioner Schrader, who is not here right now, because she came to testify on that on that project.

And several of you made some strategic phone calls at the right time and met with legislators to just really emphasize the importance of this project, the board's unity on that project, all of that together led to success for this, for this request. As Tonia mentioned, the county tracked nearly 200 bills. The real number is 194 out of about 300 bills or so. So two thirds of the legislation that was introduced affected local government in some way. And that's why we were tracking it. And with so much riding on the success of the recovery campus, we put so much energy there that we really did have very little direct involvement with other bills, as direct as we normally do in a bigger session when we have a broader capacity. But we did work on some to a large extent, and I mentioned this already. We worked with the Association of Oregon Counties on bills that affected county countywide or local government issues for the most part. Ahead of the session, we knew that the state was facing a budget crisis. We talked about that several times leading up to the legislative session, and recall that state agencies were asked to produce a two and a half and 5% budget reduction scenario going into session. But by the end of session, only 1% of cuts to the state general fund were created. That's in large part because of Senate Bill 1507 1507. That was a bill that decoupled Oregon from some federal tax policies. And I'm not really here to speak to the policies of the bill itself, but it cut the state reductions in half. And if that bill had not passed, there would have been an additional $300 million in state cuts that we would have seen and that would have affected that would have trickled down from state programs into county services such as community corrections, public health, social service programs that we were trying to protect in some way from state budget cuts. And so that bill is controversial in its own right, but I need to sort of name that it had a budget impact for Clackamas County for the positive, at least for the rest of this biennium and those budget continue, or those budget struggles are going to continue for organ projected wise for the next couple of years. And so what we're starting to see in Salem

is more energy and more effort on economic development. And so we saw a couple of bills that I want to highlight real quick. One of those bills is Senate Bill 1586. This was introduced by our friends at the city of Hillsboro aiming to attract more advanced manufacturing jobs. That bill failed this session, but we're going to see that bill come back or versions of it, and we're going to see more efforts kind of like that. Efforts to try to encourage job growth, simplify things for businesses to come and feel welcome in Oregon and Clackamas County. I think we want to be part of that game. So we're working with the with DTD to prepare for bills like that in the future, and we are mindful of the board's goals around economic development as well. So we want to participate in in those successful advances to attract jobs to Oregon and the Clackamas County. And the other bill I want to highlight in this ballpark is the farm Stores bill. This is House Bill 4153. And thank you, Commissioner Home, for coming down to testify in support of this bill. Like the last bill, this was very hotly debated, bill. It was very contested. A lot of the same opponents, actually, but this bill passed this session. But I think it speaks again to, you know, the other spectrum or the other side of the of the continuum of economic development. One side was advanced manufacturing. This side is farm and farmers and what it takes to have agriculture and produce. And those two sides of the coin really are like bookends to organize economic development. And there's a lot in between. And as we go towards a long session and as the governor's Economic Prosperity Council continues to work, I think we're going to see a lot of things within that full spectrum of economic development come to us in the future session. The last topic that I want to cover is transportation. As you all know, a transportation package passed out of the state last fall from the legislators, and we have a referral coming up for the state to decide whether or not that's going to proceed. But there was a lot left undone from the previous legislative transportation efforts. And so we saw more transportation bills come into even the short session.

Some of them policy, some of them funding oriented. Commissioner Savage, you came and testified on one of those bills. That bill failed. That was wrote it down. Senate Bill 1542. Not everything is perfect, but we wanted we want to participate in this transportation conversation as it moves forward. And we have transportation projects that are on your strategic plan that we're mindful of. And we have a department that manages over 1400 miles of county roads. And so transportation packages are something that is really a big deal for county government. And our county government in particular. We're monitoring the governor's work group, which she is launching this week. It starts on Friday. It's called the Rebuilding Oregon's Transportation Vision. And this is an advisory body to the governor. And but that work product will ultimately be a starting place for the legislature in 2027. So we're going to watch that and see what comes from it. And then, of course, we'll be doing our own work here internally at the county to prepare for 2027. That is really all that I have to share at a high level. I want to conclude by saying thank you for the agenda that is our North Star during the legislative session and the work that you put into that gives us clear guidance during session to be successful in the way that we were this year. So thank you very much for that and happy to take any questions. Commissioner West, can you just speak to I know it's not directly to the legislative session, but right before we got the $5 million and Representative Dobson was able to help navigate that money towards the recovery campus. There was a large lift with the governor's office during the during the the the long session and beyond the long session to have them participate with $10 million also. But that was kind of in between and extended. I don't know if you could speak to that, that I feel like it kind of ties into that part of the bigger story of the 5 million. Absolutely. And it's bigger than that. Collectively, external funding from state and federal resources is $17.5 million to the recovery campus.

It's a huge success, including a lot of our departments working together, our advocacy teams and our delegation, state, federal, even the governor's office. So you're correct. Last session, there were some efforts to fund behavioral health beds, addiction recovery beds in the state and there. And I don't remember the bill, but there was a bill that we were pursuing that we thought we would be a part of because of our project. It has those types of beds, but the state is being challenged right now because of the state hospital and needing to have more secure residential treatment facilities in Oregon. Our project is not secure residential treatment facilities. And so the funding that passed last session, our project was not eligible for those funds. However, there had been a lot of conversations to lead us to believe that we would have been. And so it put us in a spot for our fundraising goals at the at an advocacy level in the middle of last year. And so there were some opportunity conversations that some of our commissioners were able to have with the governor to highlight that gap and need for our project. And it turned into some good work that we were able to do with the governor's office and with OHA to find some funds that had been dedicated elsewhere. It had been unused. In January, the governor advanced a an extension of her housing emergency declaration that included $10 million for this project. Because you all have declared here in Clackamas County that our project is tied to recovery, which is tied to just recovery from addictions, but recovery from homelessness. And so there's a nexus there where the governor agrees and saw that there's an opportunity to invest in your project, our project here in Clackamas County. So that's $10 million from the governor capped on that with $5 million from the state legislature. And, of course, a call out to our two federal congressional senators who gave us $2.5 million through federal earmarks or congressionally directed spending. Thank you. Huge win, Mr. Helm. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, Trent. And thank you for your good work,

both of you at the state level and for advocating for us. We just came from a housing forum, yet another housing forum, because they seem to be all the time, but really, really good. I won't say that it was positive, but it was just a lot of information. But one thing that I came away with, which is that that each session, be it short or long at the state, is there's more and more housing laws in place and we just need to stop. Just stop because there there's just layers and layers. And I know the legislators are trying to help, but what they're doing is slowing the process because every then every jurisdiction from, you know, county down to city level, we have to stop and change our codes and, and look and see if it's going to fit and all of these things and, and it's it's not helping the process. It's actually slowing it down. So any and all of our wonderful legislators are out there listening. Please just let let us take a pause on any new laws trying to help. We understand they're trying to help, but they're they're really just kind of slow in the process down. So yeah, we heard that along with acknowledgment from the group that our staff, all staff of cities and counties are can't keep up with all the changes being made. So they're constantly updating the code, constantly updating the code. And it's hard really to interpret it if you don't really have it all done. So yeah, I would I would agree with that, that concern. Definitely. What I wanted to say was similar to this and that is, you know, 15 years ago when I got in the commission and I was told by then State Representative Brian Klemm, Commissioner, we don't do land use here at state legislature. That's off limits that we just don't do that. Well, it's a new day, isn't it? Quite a new day. Well, I do appreciate all your work. It's you know, I'd say that, you know, when legislators in session,

we always worry about things going sideways or some of the bills we have concerns about. That's not going to change. We'll continue to have that. You guys go go through a lot. So we appreciate your good work and your presence there in Salem. And we'll just hold on tight till January of this coming year of 2027. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay Gary, what is next? Thank you chair. Next session is industrial lands update and comprehensive economic excuse me and Comprehensive economic development strategy study presenting as Dan Johnson, director of transportation and development, and Laura Edmonds, economic development manager. Good afternoon. Nice to see all of you again. I have the pleasure of join Laura up here to give mostly an informational update around different things that are going on in the Office of Economic Development front. Laura is going to give you kind of a breakdown of one, a recent study that was completed. Essentially, it's step one of a very comprehensive analysis around available lands throughout Clackamas County. As you are very familiar, one familiar, one of your strategic objectives is to ensure, identify, identify what was it exactly? Let me make sure I get it right. Available lands by 2028. In conjunction with our communities and partners, the county will work to increase available lands to retain, expand and recruit new business. And so this is the first in that step is to really get a better understanding of ourselves. Then we'll be doing some additional analysis to some additional studies. Number one.

Number two is to have a discussion or at least introduce the topic of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, which is a regional discussion that's starting to occur. We want to get it on your radar. So you were familiar with it if you heard about it and provide some opportunities to answer any questions you might have. And then at the very end, there is a small funding ask to participate in funding some of the work that's going on with the SEDs. They'll come from lottery dollars to the Office of Economic Development. With that, I'm going to turn over to Laura. All right. Good afternoon. Pleasure to be before you guys today. So as Dan mentioned, we're just bringing the two items before you today. So I'm going to cover the first one first, which is the Industrial Site Readiness Study. So with this study we we started undertaking this with McKinsey incorporated to perform the study for us because they had provided previous studies. So this was a great dovetail into data we already had. So the expansion of this study was to understand industrial sites, inventory sites for unincorporated Clackamas County, five acres or greater that support industrial use. So that was the function of this study. The outcomes through the study, McKinsey identified 2023 parcels that fit into one of four categories for development potential. And from that there was a total of about 457 acres. Attachment A outlay outlines these 23 parcels in greater degree, along with maps. So the four categories and I'm just going to highlight them is the category one is development Ready that identified two sites with approximately 20 acres. Category two excuse me I should say development ready is category one development category two is developable with constraints. There was no sites identified. Category three unlikely to develop due to constraints.

Two sites identified about 23 acres in total and category four active business use present. Those were about 19 sites for about 413 acres. So after they analyzed this, they looked at about 14 just over 1400 acres in total for industrial zoned parcels and identifying those category 128, just about just above 20 acres. They decided to take a second look and kind of aggregate other parcels that were nearby. So when they did that in category one, they evaluated it and came up with just over 22 acres in total. And that really only represents like barely a percentage of the total available buildable landing category one. So with these limited results, our the Office of Economic Development is going to expand into a phase two by also studying commercial and mixed use properties in unincorporated Clackamas County that could present redevelopment and development opportunities. So that's down the road yet to come. But I want to just give you an idea of what we're going to do next. So one of the second commitment in the first phase was also to perform a site characteristics study, which is attachment B in your packet. The good thing was, is that McKinsey had already performed this study for Business Oregon. So we were able to access that study for free. And that's attached. And it's a great study on what site characteristics needs are for for different industry. Go ahead. So before we get into the next topic, I just want to take a couple of seconds again those four categories. When we say for example constraints. Constraints would be environmental. They'd be slopes, it'd be wetlands, things like that.

When we look for example, at criteria for or category four, which is active with the business use present, one of the things we really wanted to make sure was that we were at least honoring the fact that there are businesses on some of these pieces of property. There are valued members of our economics throughout Clackamas County. It doesn't mean they're developed to the highest and best use, but they're active businesses. So that's what they fall into that category of category for. And then when you look at one of the things, most interesting things is look at the category one property. That's property currently owned by the development agency. And we're sharing this just to kind of again give you a picture. When you look at just the industrial lands, we do not have a lot of available industrial lands. I can't tell you how many times a week I get a question. Hey, we're looking for 10 to 12 acres of vacant industrial land and it just doesn't exist. The effort through the additional analysis to look at mixed use and commercial is to expand the discussion a little bit more around jobs, lands, not just industrial lands. So it's any of those lands and the that maybe job producing lands within the region as a whole. So just a little more detail about that. That particular study again phase two is going to expand on it. And then also building on this information is essentially an analysis where we'll be taking a look at the the city's economic opportunity analysis reports. So those so this is unincorporated. We also are getting data from all the cities so that we can have a very holistic picture of economic opportunity within the Clackamas County as a whole. And then the next phase, future phase is going to be that lands analysis that Jamie Stassen from our regional Policy Coordination Group and her staff are working on to look kind of at the area inside the ugly

that's undeveloped or the area that is urban reserves, and pick some areas to really see what is viable in some of those areas. So to possibly look at additional capacity, because I think either one, we'll have a better handle on the real opportunity and possibilities that are in some of these areas, like, for example, some of the studies that you're familiar with, Commissioner Sarvis, are on the sunrise corridor and the opportunities that are out there. We may find areas that have less capacity than people think they have now, those that go nameless. But there's a number that people think there's a lot of density to that we know there's a lot of natural features on and things like that. So a kind of a deeper dive into those areas and those studies. And then so with that, I'll get back over to Laura to run the second part of the discussion. Great. Thanks for that. So the SEDs is a if you're not familiar with the acronym, it's a comprehensive economic development strategy. And the organizations that lead the SEDs strategy each year are Greater Portland Inc, Greater Portland Economic Development District, and Metro. And they're getting ready to kick off the next five years, said strategy, which will cover the 20 2731 years. Now I want to just highlight briefly, SEDs is a shared regional framework that for economic development, growth, innovation and resiliency, the process will help us to review data, strategy and analysis to inform decisions for industrial growth. So and through the study, they will identify the industries that we wish to target that will be very specific to this program. So GPI Metro are currently hiring, onboarding a consultant who will lead this process. And that consultant will then identify the three committees or start to do outreach for the three committees that will make up some of the advisory boards, so to speak, for this, for this study.

So there'll be a technical advisory committee, a steering committee and a champions committee. So once that is further defined and they identify the desirable representatives for these committees, then staff will come back and ask you, the commissioners, if you wish to serve on academy, one person on a committee, and if there will be a commissioner to serve as an alternate. So our desire is to actually have a county representative from each one of these studies so that it can be staff, one of you in that way. We've got make sure we have a great presence for Clackamas County throughout these discussions. So today we wanted to sense funding. Ask is we're asking you to consider $5,000 contribution to help offset the consulting costs. Generally GPI Greater Portland Inc would get federal funding through the Ed through an EDA grant, which is through the Federal Economic Development Administration. Generally, they get that, and that covers the cost for the SEDs and the management of the the Greater Portland Economic Development District Board staffing requirements. But that is backlogged and the funding has not been sent out yet. So right now, through the generosity of a number of partners, people are contributing to at least get the said started because there is a submission deadline be December by December 31st of 26 by the EDA, and if we don't meet the deadline for the said strategy, we are not going to be able to apply for any EDA grants for the region so critical that they meet these deadlines. But the money is not it's it's not a de facto on this. It's just it's an ask. The funding is comparable to other funding being provided by other regional entities to support the effort to ensure the availability and possibility of securing additional federal funds. And that to I want to reiterate, there's no general funds to be used.

Those would come from lottery funds that are already allocated for such things. So we started a conversation to kind of come in front of the board and see what which or any of you may have interest in kind of participating in this discussion. We kind of put a pause on it just to get a better handle about where best to plug in your expertise and your abilities and your interests, at what level we originally thought it was going to be at the Champions Committee level. I'm not sure. We're not sure that's the case now, but we want to kind of sit back, get that consultant hired, figure out where best we're best to place not only the talents that you're going to bring to the discussion, but also the talents of our staff. So that's about all we have. We'd be happy to answer any questions for you, Commissioner Helm. So I'm looking at some of these addresses on here is infrastructure is not there. Right. I mean there's not at all. No not at any of them. Right. It's there. They're islands. Yeah. Basically. Oh on the available lands portion. Yes. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And some of those are I mean they're rural industrial there. Yeah. Yeah. They aren't all urban industrial zones. They have a rural component as well. So some are again you'll look out they're very rural in nature. They don't have sanitary sewer. That isn't really a possibility. But again our rural industrial zones are industrial and they do allow some opportunity for a development. But again, a lot of those rural properties are the ones that you're seeing that are fitting kind of in that tier four because they've already got businesses on them to some extent. Right? Yeah. And I think I've asked you this before, but we don't do we allow septic on those then if they're there on the rural areas. And if we allow if use is dictated by the zone, this place there, if it's a use that falls within the allowed zone, they have the ability to to apply for a septic system through our septic program.

We do run commercial operations through our septic as well. We are licensed to the state of Oregon to approve systems of that nature out in those areas if they qualify, if the land is available. Okay. Thank you. So clarification, as I read this, I you know, I see the $5,000 ask as we just discussed but upwards in the packet under financial implications. It says what is the cost. And it says $38,000 is study. And then below that is a 5000 said study. So is that a conflict or is that. Tell me about the ISS study, industrial site readiness study. That's the McKenzie study. That's for the unincorporated industrial and that's what you're doing. So that was that contract cost was $38,000 okay. So this is 5000 additional. Yes. Separate not to McKenzie. It's separate funding to GPI Greater Portland. All right. Thanks for that clarification. So. Commissioners is you all ready to move on this, Commissioner West? Yeah okay. Chair, I move to approve $5,000 in lottery funds for the development of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy study. I will second, we moved in second and move by Commissioner Heilman, seconded by Commissioner West. Any other questions? Clark. Commissioner West, high commissioner helm I Mr. chair, I motion passes 3 to 0, Mr. chair. Great. Thank you so much. We'll update you once more information comes to light and we'll go from there. Thank you for the small amount of money to that was nice that it was like I thousand dollars. Thank you so much. Thanks. All right. That concludes that we're moving right along. Gary's everyone here in place for the next one. They are? Yes. Your final policy session today is syringe exchange safety barrier ordinance research

presenting is the team from Health and Human Services and county council's office. Mary Rambo, director of health, housing, human services Andrew Naylor, assistant county council. Go ahead please. Good afternoon, chair and commissioners. Is this going to hurt? No, I started out I know I will restate my name is Mary Rambo and I am the health, housing Human Services Director. And I am joined today by Andrew Naylor and County Council as well as some of our public health staff. Kim, our public health director, who will be able to answer any questions about current programing, any technical questions, as well as our evidence based public health practice. But I'm going to kick it off by presenting information on syringe service programs in Clackamas County and outlining policy options for your consideration. So to start with some context, Clackamas County remains committed to two important and complementary priorities maintaining safe communities and preventing the spread of infectious diseases. So syringe service programs, or as they're called SPS, are a well-established public health intervention that reduces transmission of HIV and hepatitis and serves as critical entry points to substance use treatment, wound care, overdose prevention, and other services. Under organ law, local public health authorities and community partners are authorized to operate SPS, including through mobile or outreach based models designed to reach underserved populations. Currently, we are not aware of any mobile or temporary SPS operating within unincorporated or incorporated Clackamas County. Clackamas County does contract with Outside End to provide syringe services at two fixed locations within the county. Clackamas Service Center, which is an unincorporated,

and the father's heart here in Oregon City, incorporated in February 2026, the board requested staff return with options to advance community safety approaches similar to Senate Bill 1573, which was introduced during the 2026 legislative session but did not pass. Senate Bill 1573 would have would have prohibited an SSP from operating a mobile or temporary within, or a temporary location within 2000ft of a school or licensed child care facility, and included provisions allowing civil lawsuits or damages against SPS. S Public Health County Council, PGA and DTD identified three primary policy options for board consideration. First, the board could adopt a local ordinance establishing restrictions on mobile or temporary syringe service program locations. There are significant implementation and oversight costs associated with a local ordinance of this nature, as it would require county code enforcement and or public health staff time and resources to establish a new regulatory enforcement system to address a problem that does not currently, as far as we understand, exist in unincorporated Clackamas County. If the board were to pursue an ordinance, staff would recommend 1000ft buffer around K through 12. Schools not include child care facilities due to enforcement feasibility challenges, and include an exemption process. For example, because of a public health emergency. Staff would also recommend avoiding broad civil liability provisions and ensuring compliance with applicable state and federal law, including American with Disabilities Act considerations. The second option to consider would be for the board to pursue a contract based policy approach. This could include requirements

related to syringe disposal and service evaluation. This approach is less costly and avoids the operational complexity associated with an ordinance, and the third option would be to defer local action and monitor upcoming state legislative activity. Legislation similar to Senate Bill 1573 is expected to be reintroduced and may preempt local authority in this area. This option would allow time to coordinate with local cities and regional partners should statewide policy not move forward. It would be our recommendation that the board consider option number three. We are happy to answer any questions and discuss solutions that both protect students and support the continuation of evidence based public health practices. So again, to clarify staff's recommendations. Option three correct. Okay. Colleagues, questions, comments. And you're you're expecting this in the upcoming long session. Then we all indication all indications. And we do have Trent Wilson in the room as well. All all indications is that it was introduced by Reynolds this last session and that it will be reintroduced, but probably with some modifications, probably similar to what we would be recommending, which is more than 1000ft versus 2000. So all indications tell us that this will be back in the long session next year. Okay. Commissioner West comments. You knew I was gonna turn my light on. I saw you move it that way. So I. I in the support of option one. I don't think that should be a shock to anybody. And part of that reason is and I'm okay with the 1000ft versus 2000

and looking at the kind of map, one of the things I would have liked to have seen as a map of the county and the unincorporated areas, and what those buffer zone looks like around those specific types of schools and facilities. I do want to clarify. We're not talking about in-home child care, talking about more commercial child that that more replicate, like what a kindergarten or preschool might look like in a school setting. I don't think it's feasible or practical to look at in-home. So I do want to clarify that. And I do think that a lot of the concerns around, Ada requirements and things like that one, I think local governments have a long standing right and responsibility to use zoning to protect the public health and safety of its citizens. We're trying to find that balance between those that need treatment and are in treatment and are using these services, along with protecting the vulnerable population of youth and children to make sure that they have safe access to education and to and to kid friendly spaces. I know there's been some conversation around, well, what about those that are using syringes for diabetic treatment or for GLP one inhibitors? Those are like your picks and and those types of that are. However, we've never seen an issue with those syringes from those types of uses really ever becoming showing up in our parks or streets. Right? We've been using diabetic syringes since the beginning of for decades for that kind of treatment, and that has never been an issue with them showing up really in large quantities and those types of spaces. And I think there's a very novel and difficult legal argument to classify substance use disorder as under the Ada. I think that's a whole interesting novel argument, potentially. And what happened up in Washington County, that was a that was a blanket ban over an entire county, which made it difficult to get services. We're not talking about that here.

I think that there is a lot of support for this among our constituents and here in the metro area, not just here alone. I think we could show some leadership here and take a look at it from a local level. That's why I am interested in still directing staff to put forward together an ordinance restricting syringe services program operations within that kind of narrow county scope. So that's my thoughts on it. I don't know what you guys are thinking to, but I'm still kind of leaning towards moving forward and not sitting back. I think we can take a local, pragmatic approach to this, and that's what we're trying to do. So I'll leave it at that. And I may have further comments as we all discuss it here, but I'd be interested in what my colleagues think to commissioner. Well, I would I would be inclined to take staff's recommendation and just take no action if I hate to be the yo yo right. If we if we institute a policy that's going to be overridden later, is, is that what you kind of intimated that there no matter what we it would be out of our control? Well, I mean, I certainly think the opportunity is to, to follow the legislation very closely and to, you know, to to likely take a position including making sure that we're advocating for, for whatever would be put in place at statewide that we believe we can we can adhere to compliance locally, just just like we did have a recommendation. The original bill had a 2000ft. We recommended a thousand. So, you know, we're not taking a position that we can't support this. So it is I mean, I don't know that it's risky, but I do think there's a risk that there could be then legislation, statewide legislation passed that could be counter to what we've implemented with local ordinance. I don't I don't know enough about, you know, the risk there, but I think it is a consideration. And I understand what you're

you're driving at, Commissioner West as far as like implementing something now that, you know, you know, addresses our situation here in Clackamas County. But, I mean, I just don't trust the local I don't trust the state legislature to do what's right for Clackamas County in the region. I think we can take a local approach to this. They feel to pass it. A lot of special interest groups put pressure on legislators. I, I just think that we can take action to not allow these biohazard and children's spaces in a reasonable way. We can always adjust this, and as we need to moving forward and be malleable to that and be responsive to that. But I think that we can be responsive to Clackamas County residents that I think would appreciate these these buffer zones. Are we fixing a problem that doesn't exist if we only have? I think it does. I think it would do the best we can, and I think it does exist throughout the metro area in Clackamas County. Yeah, I think it does. I think there's further work to do with cities to take some local control back here to do the right thing. And I think even measures like this help restore community trust in an issue where, frankly, it's been eroded quite significantly in the metro area. And so we're showing some balance here with some a reasonable approach that that kind of targets different populations. But I mean, we have I think we've just heard a lot of responsibility. I don't want to defer it here. We've done it better than the state and we've done it better than Portland County. I don't really want to defer that responsibility. I see. Got it. Okay. Well, I'll jump in here. So I have some questions on option one. Just just for sake of discussion here. Number one it there's a lot of real estate in the county right. So a lot of ground to cover. If we draft an ordinance does it only apply. Question number one. Does it only apply to the unincorporated. Okay. That's what I thought.

And my other question is is one paragraph under under section one or adopt a local ordinance. The second paragraph says there are significant implementation and oversight costs associated with the local ordinance. So this is regulatory first of all. But secondly, I don't have my arms. I can't I don't there's not enough information here for me to to how would this be funded, how much would it cost. Significance a word. Right. But it doesn't have a dollar sign behind it. So I need a thumbnail sketch of what that really is. Yeah. And I think that would be some of the work that we would need to do. Chair. Sarvis. So, you know, as my staff shared, you know, it would sort of depend on with the ordinance, be more of a complaint driven system, which would likely be a less cost less than establishing, like you have to be registered or license. We do know, for example, that outside in who does who have the who. The two fixed SSP programs, they, you know, are funded 25,000 a year by healthcare. They probably get other funding as well to run their program. So again, you know, this, this, this piece of like enforcement. So now now we have a mobile SSP out in SDK that we don't. But let's say we do like where's the authority who is doing the work. Because there is not a budget for this. And so does that fall to code enforcement. Does that fall to public health. You know, our challenges with even just ensuring compliance with food carts, for example, the pop up food carts that are not licensed. And we go out and we educate and we can find them, but they don't have to pay us. That's all staff time. That at least falls within a budget that we have.

So, you know, I'm also curious, you know, if this were to become a statewide a statewide requirement. You know, is the state going to identify funding? I think, again, once again, our position would be we're not going to do something that is an unfunded mandate. Correct. But I sort of feel like this ordinance is putting us in a position of doing something we don't have identified funds for. And that's very clear in our in our policy worksheet that there is no budget for this. Yeah. Well, I think that's a number one, the regulatory aspects. Number two, the cost. Unknown cost. And then then if it is ordinance, then therefore we are somewhat liable because for our own ordinance that we passed. Right. They were responsible for. So to me I think that's got some. If there's not enough funding that puts us in a situation where there could be liability involved. Yes. No. Andrew Naylor, assistant County Council, lean to close there. I don't know if it would create liability per se, but it would be an ordinance that we weren't enforcing, which could be a problem down the road, especially if we decided to start enforcing it after a period of time where it's just been on the books with no funding available to actually take action on it. So again, it was sort of depend on exactly what the ordinance is and how it was crafted, but passing it and then not doing anything with it. I don't believe it would create liability or there be very low risk that would create liability. More of a question of future enforcement. Yeah, well it's not I mean, I'll just use a different topic that, you know, people would say, okay, there's you have an ordinance on the books that says, you know, you're going to, you know, enforce speeding in your local communities to keep them safe. And and there's not enough sheriff's deputies out there to enforce that. Right? So there are a lot of laws on the books that we don't have the resources to actually follow. I know that if someone speeds and hit someone, you know,

we're not necessarily liable, but I think this is a little bit different in a way. But there again, that's I'm trying to get my arms around that. There's three of us here today. I don't think we're going to come up with a consensus on anything here today. My question is maybe just a wild guess on cost to enforce something like this. Just a wild guess, Mary. Or am I putting you on the spot too much? Kim, do you have any sense at all you want to come up with? Andrew's not moving. I just I can say you want me to go here. Easy there. Kim Lacroix, public health division director. It's a hard question to answer without knowing, like what kind of ordinance it is. I think, like Mary said, if it's, you know, complaint driven process, of course, that requires staff to accept the complaints, develop a tracking system, respond to the complaints, probably some community engagement. So it's probably, you know, an Ft, at least for that. If it's a registry that would cost more money, because then you have to set up the whole system and work, you know, similar, similar things in terms of like tracking and response to complaints. But the whole establishment of the requirements of what it would take to be registered and then the annual registration process and enforcement so that that would be more staff. So either way, I think it's at least one FTE broad estimate. But don't hold me to that because it's hard to know without what you would actually want in an ordinance. And I would just say, I mean, to put it on a low end. When you look at our fully loaded FTE costs, we're talking

probably $180,000 per, you know, for a fully loaded annual FTE cost. We're just very expensive employees to be doing this work. Right. So my my last question, I see Commissioner West has his light on. But my last question for now is are there is there a potential source at the state for state funding for this, or is this general fund support? How how where would the dollars come from if indeed we did something like this for that one FTE or more? Oh, I mean, we don't it would depend on how you would set up the ordinance, but we don't have any funding for something like this. So I can see why the staff recommendation is option three. Commissioner West. Well, I think the staff also has a bias against the ordinance going forward, and it's a comfortable for them. And I understand that. However, we're not the first ones to talk about this at the local level. Philadelphia has actually banned a significant amount of syringe services within the city of Philadelphia. Roseburg did something similar here in Oregon. They never came and showed us options of their local jurisdictions that were innovative and took local control here, and we still haven't talked about opioid dollars and other. We just haven't looked into that. And when you go with option one, part of figuring out maybe where we can fund that, and then also looking at what looks like the future looks like, we talk about those funding options, but the staff has been concerned and doesn't necessarily want to do this. I know I'm pushing an idea that staff may not be totally comfortable with, but it's not out of the blue. Many, many constituents have been concerned about this. There are local examples. And so I think that Clackamas County has been awesome when dealing with issues in this subject matter. Much better than the state. I don't want to abdicate local control back to the state when we can show by example good policy moving forward, and can probably figure this out

for one staffer at only $180,000 a year. With the large budget that we have, we're going into budget cycle. So I don't want to act fearfully. I want to be responsive, moving forward, to do the right thing for constituents. So I would I mean, I'm going to we don't have a full board here. Maybe this is a further discussion, but it seems like we're quick to pick up opposition instead of trying to figure out how to get to yes on this issue. And if I could just comment, Commissioner West, I guess where I'm struggling is we're going to commit, we're going to create an ordinance. We're going to create commit resources. Frankly, we don't have I understand we have a large budget, but not a large county general fund budget for unincorporated Clackamas County, where if you have evidence that this that we have constituents who are concerned, then we need to know that because that is not we are not aware of any mobile or pop up PSPS and unincorporated. And the ordinance would only apply to unincorporated. So if we have a problem, we are not aware of that problem and we absolutely should solve for that. We are not opposed to this. We're just concerned that we're going to create an ordinance, that we're trying to fix, something that we don't yet have a problem. Now, if we had a problem like the city of Portland is trying or Multnomah County is trying to address. Right, it was well within school zone. I totally get that. But so I think we're we're we're we are not being. No, we are just trying to be practical and realistic for what our authority looks like for unincorporated Clackamas County. I get calls from constituents that sit there and walk their dogs and parks and areas in unincorporated Clackamas County. Commissioner, why do I see needles here? So and then that's where these policy solutions come from, is when constituents come from us and other policy makers that are concerned about this.

I didn't invent this out of thin air, and I'm trying to find that very special nuance balance between the livability of communities and protecting kids and taking local control, which I'm proud of, our local control and how we do that here versus like, still providing essential services. I didn't say it. Wouldn't it be hard? I just think there's a pathway to do that. And I and I do I do feel like staff maybe is uncomfortable with moving this forward. I'm trying to find that balance as a policymaker. So again, I would ask if if this is actually so syringe syringes not being disposed of properly. And SPS frankly are two different things. We don't have SPS out in rural Clackamas County giving syringes and then not taking them back. That was the issue. That was primarily the issue in Multnomah County. So I don't know how an ordinance for SPS solve for sorry, where I've seen the needles in with my own eyes, has been in unincorporated Clackamas County that's still close to the urban area, and much of our unincorporated Clackamas County is not out, all in the rural area. It is also in close to urban area. And so, I mean, I've also seen them with my myself. So since being elected in this position and yeah, so I, I get what you're saying. But it's not just Molalla and STK and whatnot that are included in unincorporated Clackamas County. So I'm going to ask a question to Commissioner West. And you know, I, you know, late lately especially, I mean, both in rural and urban. And have I seen needles here and there? Absolutely. I know they're out there. My question to you is, Commissioner West, if there's no funds to fund this, or would you even be comfortable with just having the ordinance in place to actually keep SPS out? Well, give me some options in a real policy session

that looks at different funding sources potentially. So we just came with like significant we didn't talk about hey. Is there any room or do we want to look at how we prioritize our opioid funds. Could those even be used for something like this since they can be used for actual services like this? Is there something that mitigates within those funds for the other part of the community that may be negative, negatively impacted by these services? Are there other sources? We haven't even had any opportunity to talk about what those are yet, but it's already being brought up as a potential barrier before we've done that. Okay. So I'm going to ask me to staff the question a little bit differently is if an SSP came into Clackamas County, does that mean there's more needles out out there? If an SSP came in the Clackamas County? Well that so and I'm going to start and then Kim can can add if she especially if she disagrees I think that's actually option two. So that we as a local public health authority could put into place expectations and requirements for a mobile or even a fixed SSP in unincorporated, in which there is the requirement within contract that they do a 1 to 1, that they have a needle, you know, they get a needle and they receive a needle. And, you know, we do. It's not a perfect system. We have some data on how what the percentage of returned needles are for outside in. But that that would be that could be. The other option is to at least have a policy in place. So we have some authority as, as a local public health authority. So that if this were all of a sudden we do have a pop up, or we have a mobile or we are inviting somebody in, we get to put the parameters around the expectations and then there will be compliance to that contract. If, if in fact, what we're finding is that people are not disposing of needles appropriately. So, so by virtue of you saying for needle,

you get one back that it won't add more needles to my question. That was a point of my question would add more needles. You know, they're on the street if it's a one for the model of SPS. Kim. Right? Yeah. So yes, theoretically, you know, if you're distributing needles, the best evidence based policy is to accept them back because. You know, there's different because especially where one of the Clackamas Service Center location is, sometimes people cross between Multnomah and Clackamas. And so needles may be returned in a different jurisdiction versus our jurisdiction. So but yes, the evidence based practice is to collect the use needles. Okay. So I'm just because I'm confused. I don't I don't understand how directing staff to draft an ordinance restricting syringe service program operations keeps needles from arriving on the ground wherever people are seeing them. I don't understand that correlation. To me, it doesn't fix the problem well. So if you have close proximity to the SPS and where they're getting in, exchanging needles in those areas, you're more likely to have that type of biohazard litter. So what we're doing is trying to remove that type of activity with that population and create that buffer zone around kids. And we're not even talking that that legislation was a 2000ft buffer, which was about ten city average blocks. We're talking about half of that now, which I'm totally fine with. It is difficult period to recycle needle medical needles period in Clackamas County. The only place I can think of where you can actually do that is at the like at a metro transfer station. Like we people can't go back to the pharmacies like there's no. So that's another policy idea too, is like, where can we expand the actual place where people can take their medically used needles

and appropriately dispose of them, and that we actually have the red box containers that are needle proof that, like, safely secure, those are there programs that have to be out there. We don't have good access to return those needles at all in our community. For anybody who needs to use them for any medical purpose, that could also potentially help. I just think we're the buffer zone around a kid in commercial daycare of 1000ft is like, so pragmatic and moderate and reasonable. There's a way for us to get there. We're not asking for anything all that extreme here with trying to also have that peace of mind and safety for, for for kids walking to school and to daycare. So, Commissioner Wes, let me ask you a question. Do you think that to the earlier part of the conversation? Do you think that option one would result in less needles and rural and urban areas that are not the identified area that an SSP would operate? That's that's what I was trying to get at. Yeah. Say your question again. I'm not sure I understand that. So to your point about the needles that you and I both see, both urban and rural area, if an SSP set up shop, let's just say within that buffer, and they're at this particular place geographically in Clackamas County, that that's going to reduce the needle count in those areas of vicinity. Yes. You explain that to me then. Well, one, I think it's common sense. And what I think that evidence shows that where you have these SSP services, those surrounding areas are most likely and businesses and what are most likely to be impacted by, by, by litter and usage within those vicinities. Okay. So I maybe I'm taking a leap here and maybe I am in error, but it's almost like the I forgot was it the food distribution? And we were talking and last year I believe maybe two years ago, and we were talking about where all the,

the access to food is for people that are houseless. Right. So we need a center in Wilsonville, maybe one and two and so on and so forth. And I think what the conversation drove out of that was that people really can't commute from Tualatin or Wilsonville to go to Tualatin and back, right? Because there's no really transportation. So are people just going to do, you know, use needles and, you know, use are they actually going to go to a place that's 5 or 6, ten miles away? We already have many examples within the metro area where SSP sites actually do have quite a bit of litter around them in spaces that also need to protect kids. This is this is why this conversation is happening. This isn't unique. This is this is already self-evident within the metro area. And that's why parents and and organizations and families are trying to get some type of protection just around these specific type of populations. Okay. So we've seen we've already seen that. Did you light on it. You finished. Oh no he didn't turn it off. That's fine. Okay. Well staff you have anything else to add because we're not going to get anywhere today. And perhaps we can pick up a conversation. And as to should we bring this back, I would be concerned, for example, NIMBYism. What area in Clackamas County would want to have an SSP set up shop? I think that's another battle that would have to. You can't do a total ban. I think that's legal jeopardy. We've talked about that with Louis County, but many local jurisdictions across the country, and some even here in Oregon, will Roseburg, one of them, have set up some type of reasonable restrictions for the public health and safety of the entire community, which I think is within the scope of local government. I would love to see a map even for a policy discussion. Like I've talked about this a couple of times. This is what Clackamas County looks like to see that visually. Like here's the barrier, here's the areas where they could operate.

It would make it much easier to vote or push this policy forward for an ordinance. That's information that would be helpful to me. And then maybe I look at the map and I'm like, we don't need it here. Maybe, maybe that's the case. I'm totally open to that. But I think an actual visual aid on this would be super helpful. And, you know, if we want to find them funds and make this a priority, I think there is money there to do that. I think looking at how we spend our opioid dollars for and taking a little bit from everything to make sure we're funding some of this mitigation factor also is a reasonable policy decision. I don't know if we can even use opioid dollars for this, or even just to say, let's get creative and see what we can. We don't know where the funnies coming now, but we're going to try is a much different conversation than what we were given today. And I think that we should look at examples at local governments that have had successes and not just look at Louis County with their uniquely different ban than what we're talking about here today. So those are different approaches. If we talk about this again, that we might want to try just one. One more thing is, as I do want to be responsive to, I have not heard any any complaints, anyone from anyone about this, but I want to be responsible with our money. So I don't like putting an ordinance in place without knowing how it's going to get paid for. So I would prefer that staff comes back with a way that they could cobble together 180 or $200,000, and also what our other consequences of of instituting the ordinance. I don't I don't know what other costs might be involved. On top of that, there might be other costs down the road. So I just want the kind of the full picture before I. And if we end up saying no, let's say we do and the board doesn't go that direction, I hope that we are having we're part of the very robust conversation that will be happening in Salem to make sure that local governments considerations are considered, and that we hold local government and are working with our Clackamas Caucus to make sure that these spaces are dealt with appropriately.

And if I could just ask a clarification, because it's clear, Commissioner Wes, that this was was not as satisfactory to you as we would have hoped. So I want to be clear about what our ask are. We can certainly look at the unincorporated Clackamas County. Are you wanting us to look at the 1000ft? Yeah. Around. It'd be interesting to see both. I, I know that that's kind of been the debate, but thousand 2000 seems to be pretty large considering what other jurisdictions may have done. But, you know, I'm trying to think in my brain, how long how big is a radius of 2000ft? I think it's about ten average square city blocks, like an average block. But like, what does that look like? And if it's all of a sudden looking like we're creating more of a total ban and it's not workable, I want to be able to tailor it. If we do this to what works reasonably. So I don't know what that even looks like, but I'm so far I have not been pushing back at the 1000ft barrier either. Okay, so we can certainly model a map with 1000 1000ft and the 2000ft K through 12 for sure. Child care as well. Again, commercial. We cannot. No we cannot do it's not reasonable. We don't even know we came in track that we can't even exactly. It's not information we easily have. Okay okay. I'll just add one thing as to the mayor, if your staff were to do any work on this, and that is I would. You know, I'm just thinking about kids and what, what what kids are doing, and I don't want them exposed. I think things like parks ought to be included as well as libraries, you know, places where we think kids would go up, let's say their fields, parks, ball fields, whatnot. I think there's areas in which I wouldn't want that taking place there either, not just schools. And I'd be interesting ones if we just maybe are forming a good policy. I bet you a majority of our cities, maybe not all of them, but the majority of them

would follow suit with us in something, and we can show leadership at the local level. And then it wouldn't be. It'd be more of a we just kind of better continuity across the county. Good idea. Okay. Anything else? For the good of the order. We'll bring it back with this extra data you've asked for. Okay, great. Thank you for your guys's hard work, I appreciate it, thank you. Gary, I apparently we are done for the day. That is it for the day, chair. Yes, folks, we are adjourned.