Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good morning and welcome everyone to Administrative Issues and Updates on June 2nd, 2026.

County Administrator Gary Schmidt, would you please call the roll? Yes, thank you, Chair. Roll call. Commissioner Savas. Present. Commissioner Helm. Here. Chair Roberts. Here.

All right, Gary, hey, just before we go on to our first agenda item, I think it would be appropriate to just take a moment of silence for the loss of the victims in Sandy and that brave 16-year-old. It's just a huge tragedy for our community. So let's just take a moment of silence. All right, Gary, would you please introduce our first agenda item?

Yes, thank you. The first item is, as usual, there's a request for a consent agenda item that is different or unique, so we bring it to you first at issues to answer your questions before it goes on consent. This one is for Health Housing Human Services. The title is Approval of an Application with the Oregon Health Authority for the Rural Health Transformation Catalyst Grant. Total agreement value is $3.9 million for the period July 1st, 2026 through October 30th, 2027. Funding is through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services via the Oregon Health Authority. No county general funds are involved. Phillip Mason-Joyner is the Deputy Director of Health, Housing, and Human Services. Go ahead, please. Thank you, Gary.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Yes, thrilled to be here this morning to seek board approval to add to your consent agenda this upcoming Thursday. Approval to apply for this grant, and if awarded, To accept the rule health transformation grant this proposal is led by our public health division, but also involves direct engagement from our social services behavioral health and health center division we are requesting 3.9 million dollars so an Exist significant amount of funding if awarded to This grant really reflects the work that we're trying to do to integrate, to coordinate, and to align our resources across a very large agency and help provide some gaps, especially in our rural healthcare community, to focus on prevention, increase workforce capacity, make technology, and improve care coordination. we have lots of rural cities and towns in unincorporated areas and around 76,000 community members who could benefit if we awarded this grant. It' s a very large federal proposal, very complex, lots of moving pieces, but at a super high level what we' re looking to invest in is three different discrete projects. The first one is our community paramedic program to expand that into rural areas. Right now Community Paramedicine is with Metro supported housing funds focused on the urban core. So this would allow us to get out into Canby, Sandy, Estacada, Malala and other unincorporated rural areas of the county. It'll allow us to invest more resources into rural mental health promotion. with a focus on older adults and veterans, which, as you heard a couple weeks ago during the mental health awareness presentation, a big need in our community. We've also had some state funding reduction, so this would help fill some gaps if we're awarded this grant. And also our Clackamas Health Centers, our largest FQHC in the county, is at the table. This grant would allow them to serve 2,000 patients at Sandy Clinic to invest in new technology where they can really increase their telehealth capabilities and do more appointments and have more tools to help them to reduce folks having to travel to clinics and be seen. So this is a really exciting opportunity. This was a compressed timeline. H3S, we did already go ahead and submit the grant. It was due last Thursday. And because of the tight time frame, I do apologize that we weren't able to get this approval before you. But of course, if you just tell us not to move forward, we of course not accept the award. Although I'm really hopeful that that won't be the case. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Right Commissioner West.

Well, I think your your risk of Whether or not we would support this was probably accurate. So thank you for being quick on your feet Want to dive in a little bit to the community the community paramedic piece which has been we piloted and has been a wild success and we've kind of had to hobble funding together for that and Commissioner Helm, if you have not done a ride along with our community paramedic yet, it is really valuable to what kind of resource it is to the community. It helps keep people out of the emergency room. It helps make sure they get the appropriate care for chronic issues in their lives. We keep kind of a pulse and a hand on them so we know where they're at within their their health processes, and they utilize emergency services way less. And it's really a fantastic and wild success. So we have always been concerned about the long-term funding with that. Can you just back up a little bit? And if we are awarded this, what... What what does that do with the funds that does that free up additional funding that we're already using for the community paramedic? Does it just augment and expand it so we can do it a little better and a little more we're gonna have to hire a Few more like you can you kind of break that down a little bit for us?

Yeah Thank You Commissioner West for a question. It really helps expand a geographic reach right now. It's very focused on We can only use the Metro support housing services in the Metro REIT areas. So this would allow us to expand the geography. The community paramedic has been wildly successful in the two years it's been in place at Clackamas County. And it's because of so many investments we've made with our law enforcement and first responders and the EMS, our AMR contract having first watch where we can get data around folks who have overdosed or high utilizers of the emergency department and the community paramedic uses that data to go out and connect with folks and get them care coordination and really trying to help them get connected to appropriate, the most cost effective health services. and reduce that burden on our hospitals. So that's one of the intents. So that will allow us to go out into rural areas and do the same work and build those partnerships out in the rural communities as well with this program. Thank you for that.

Does it free up the SHS dollars or is it augmenting it? Are we going to have more in the pot to expand a program that's working or are we looking to free up the limited SHS dollars and redeploy them?

Well, as you know, the forecast with Metro Support Housing Services is not keeping pace with expenses. So this will allow us to increase some capacity and still keep the program whole and moving forward without having to make reductions. That's our ultimate goal. Are you going to have to hire more? We might look in bringing if we get the full 3.9 million. We might look to bring in some limited term I'm to duration positions. It wouldn't be full-time Permanent positions because this initial funding for this award is only 16 months. Okay, cool.

Thank you for answering my question Commissioner service I just need clarification. It looks to me the way I read this is Is that this is more for capital improvements? an investment to help provide services. It's not really an operational, you know, it's not O&M, it's not NFT per se. I mean, that's how I read it. I read it is that we'll be able to, as is stated, improve our ability in rural communities with the investments, whether it's a structure, whether it's technology. Is that really what this is?

I think it's both and. It definitely wants to see us increase some technology, some new tools, some of the things that we built here at our campus in Oregon City to see expanded and get out, out into rural areas. We're not hiring new staff, but really looking to make those, I guess, operational capacity increases.

So we would be investing in existing facilities or we'd be building new facilities?

Existing. All existing programming. It's enhancing existing program and service delivery. Thank you.

All right. Well, if there's no other questions or objections, we'll advance this item to the consent agenda this Thursday for June 4th. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, and thank you for taking leadership and moving it forward. Thank you.

And Gary, what's next? Thank you. Next is advisory board and commission appointments. Andrew, go ahead, please.

Mr. Chair, there are two advisory bodies for the board's consideration today. The first, the Mental Health and Addictions Council, staffed by the Behavioral Health Division, currently has two openings on their commission due to term expirations. Twenty-one total members are allowed with two terms, unless approved by the Council for additional terms. Each term is three years. The recommendation is as follows. I move to appoint sherry price to a third term ending 2029 and Sarah clement to a second term ending 2029. The board of commissioners could select other candidates or require further recruitment Mr. Chair.

thank you. Is there a motion?

I move to appoint sherry price and Sarah clement to the mental health and addictions council.

All right, Commissioner Helm has moved to appoint Sherry Price and Sarah Clement to the Mental Health and Addiction Council. It's been seconded by Commissioner Savas. Any further discussion? And I see Commissioner West.

I'm really thankful for their service. I'll be supporting the motion. I just wanted to ask though, is it true that with this specific advisory council that there are the qualifications such as being within, there's a breakdown with who can actually be on the actual council, am I not correct? You can always get back to me offline, too, but I'd like to remember what that breakdown is.

I think the answer is yes. There's different categories, but we'll look into that.

You use the health system here. You're a patient. You're a provider. There's some things where they break down the makeup of the board, but I would love to get a reminder, refresher on how that is made up. I appreciate it. Email's fine, whatever. Yes. But that's all.

All right, thank you. Seeing no other questions, clerk, you want to call the poll for us?

Commissioner West? Aye. Commissioner Schroeder?

Aye.

Commissioner Savas? Aye. Commissioner Helm?

Aye.

Mr. Chair? Aye. Motion passes five to zero, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Andrew. All right, what's next, Gary? One more advisory board. Go ahead. The second advisory body for the board's consideration today, Mr. Chair, is the Clackamas County Vector Control District Board of Trustees, which currently has one opening due to the resignation of a former member. This advisory body holds a member roster of five members serving four-year terms. The recommendation is as follows. Tarika Salmon to a first term ending 2030. The Board of County Commissioners could select other candidates or require further recruitment. Mr. Chair.

All right. Is there a motion? I move to appoint Tarika Salmon to the Vector-Controlled District Board of Trustees.

I'll second that.

All right, Commissioner West has moved to appoint Tarika Salmon to the Vector-Controlled District Board of Trustees. Commissioner Schrader is seconded to that. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, we call the poll. Commissioner Helm.

Aye. Commissioner Savas. Aye. Commissioner Schrader.

Aye.

Commissioner West. Aye.

Mr. Chair. Aye. Motion passes 5-0, Mr. Chair. And back to you, Gary. Thank you. Next is a review of your board business meeting agenda for this Thursday, June 4th. 2026 at 10 a.m. You will have public communication housing authority consent agenda a public hearing on a boundary change proposal and Consent agenda for the Board of County Commissioners North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District and water environment services if you have any questions on any item Would you please let me know and I will answer it for you or have staff in the room to answer it for you on? Thursday next Commissioner West would like to speak to you about tent distribution in Clackamas County

All right. I know I have questions for staff, so I don't know if they can.

Yes, please come forward, Shannon and Philip. Philip Mason Joyner, Deputy Director of Health, Housing, and Human Services, Shannon Callahan, Executive Director of the Housing Authority. Go ahead. Commissioner West, you're first, please.

I know many of us received communication from Mayor Wilson from Portland. I also got a phone call from him. I believe we all got the email from him. I asked him to send the email if he spoke to us. I'm sure that you guys shared the same concerns that I have. I don't understand the full depth of what our policy is, who is and who isn't, what's the history around distributing tents to those that are struggling with homelessness. I hope that we have a better response than tents. I know there's been some controversy around that within the metro area and in places where it's become problematic and contributed to tent encampments and that type of behavior, which then we have to go clean up the tents on which we hand out, so it's not always helpful in the long run. and it has an issue with public trust so my question is to both of you and thank you for being here how do we look at this what has our policy been and who that we interact with is actually engaging potentially in that behavior and then according to your expertise and having knowledge as like from the county's point of view what would you advise the board to do next maybe um i'm inclined to ask for an overall review about like Okay, we don't do that. Maybe we shouldn't do that. And then what? And then what's next? Well, I know we're waiting to get our shelter up and everything like that. And that's later down the road. But right now, what about now? So those are my questions to both of you. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner West, for raising this issue and for the specific question. I just wanted to reference, if I might, before I actually go into the specifics, that the particular issue that Mayor Wilson raised had to do with tent distribution actually from Multnomah County. Multnomah County up until very recently had a distribution center for all type of equipment for those who are working with folks that are homeless that included tents. And any and all tents that may have been distributed within the City of Portland including this specific issue came from the stockpile of Multnomah County. And not from any funds related to Clackamas County. So I just wanted to clarify that at the outset But we do allow for the purchase of equipment that's necessary for survival within our homeless outreach contracts and obviously Clackamas County is a very geography very much different than the city of Portland or that we don't just have dense urban environments, but we also have very rural areas where there are different temperatures and different geography away from day centers and other things. So it does come up on occasion when it is necessary for someone's survival. That a tent may be distributed and you can obviously think of when those times would be You know severe winter weather or something like that and again through our outreach workers working directly with community But it is few and far between Our providers work really hard to balance the needs of the community That they're serving and also making sure that they're good stewards of the community spaces so we don't have large tent distribution programs like the City of Portland and Multnomah County once did. Our providers have very limited discretion and a very limited amount of flexibility funds that does include survival gear. But we appreciate your suggestion to review the policy and the guidance that we have. Did I actually answer in detail your questions?

Yeah, I'm still... I think that the conversation has to happen about how do we get away from ever having to do that because one, not only is the public perception very negative at this point because of the chronic and persistent issue around the establishment of tent encampments, but it does present a potential public safety risk as these things can continue to quickly grow. Health hazards creates... kind of a vicious cycle like I mentioned to previously and I'm not sure how policy wise how the board would want to address it but I also but what if not that right now and be very clear about our intentions moving forward. Thank you for the clarification that most likely those tents in southeast Portland close to our border are actually from our neighboring county and not from our providers or us here in Clackamas County. but I don't want it to look like we're doing band-aids that potentially get worse and quickly out of control. I understand with what you're saying, but it also is kind of a dangerous way to house people too. So I'm just trying to like, if we're gonna make a firm stance that that's not how we wanna address homelessness, where are we going?

and commissioner i appreciate everything you've just said i we would never consider them to be an alternative to shelter or housing it is literally a matter of whether the conditions are such that it is a life or death situation um in the in the case of extreme cold if someone is not in a shelter and they and we have no housing or we have no shelter for them That a small pup tent can raise temperature and help keep them alive.

But it is traditionally been able to provide amazing response to inclement weather and have places for people to go and say, hey, we do have somewhere for you to go. So this isn't an option. Am I right? Traditionally, that's how we've been operating since I've been on the board.

Yes, but there are circumstances when sometimes people don't come in or they're not capable of coming in. I mean, we are talking it as a very few and far between used. In fact, we could go back and do a review of all of our flexible funds, but when we looked at this particular provider, we hadn't seen the use of any type of tent for survival gear. It is literally an as-needed emergency situation and is not a sheltering or a housing program. It is a survival and survival only. But I do think having that clarity and that direction with the board and bringing back more detailed information for you and your policy setting would be appropriate.

And I know, Shannon, you're helping me with the overall regional approach to how we manage the SHS funding on this issue. And there is a regional conversation. That's also why Mayor Wilson is reaching out to all of us. And, you know, I share his concerns with how this... These programs with neighboring partners have maybe been counterproductive. I share his concerns in wanting to make sure that we don't have people sleeping in our streets if we have alternative options, which we're working hard to do. I'm curious kind of what the board and my colleagues think about making a policy decision moving forward or a review or how we respond to Mayor Wilson. But thank you for answering my questions.

All right. Commissioner Salvas.

Yeah, well, I'm going to just reflect on things that I've learned. and you know from our staff and from individuals that have been homeless and what the barriers are when someone is offered on the street who's homeless when they are offered a place whether it's permanent or whether it is overnight whatnot and so I know that you know we have a lot of experience in that and you know I would say that in listening to Mayor Wilson he did call me but I didn't I went to voicemail. I didn't have an opportunity to connect with this. I wanted to have this discussion first before I called him back. But my understanding was that part of the strategy of his overnight shelters that he's got out there was that that gives them the ability to say, I'm sorry, you need to – you know, you need to – you can't camp here we have alternative shelter for you and so on so that gives them you know the avenue of the right. We also know that you know they haven't filled those shelter beds maybe on inclement weather they came close I don't know. So on the other hand, bear in mind, I think that we don't have that many shelter beds overnight, right? So they have something that we don't. We don't have a lot of overnight shelter beds that can be used 365, right? We do put up shelter in inclement weather, as I understand it. And if I make any statements here, I'm wrong. Please challenge me. So I'm okay with being challenged. So my other understanding is that some of the reluctance in talking to some of the people is I don't want to leave my stuff, right? If I take an overnight shelter, my stuff will be either taken or stolen or my space that I'm currently in will be taken or whatnot. And they also have their neighbors, right? Neighbors that are also houseless that are homeless. you know, in their little circle. So they have some security there, as insecure as all that may be. So there's always a reluctance to take an overnight shelter and walk away from everything you have. So that's why I think having more transitional housing capacity, right, for those folks, whatever it looks like, you know, look at the Veterans Village and then now the other. If we can build more of that. They have an opportunity to bring their stuff. They have an opportunity to have new neighbors. And they don't have to no longer worry about the next day when I come back and my space is gone because they'll have a space. So I just think it's a matter of approach and also resources. But I can see in a situation of burning hot sun or super wet weather or whatnot that You know, I could see where having some shelter, you know, I don't want to see tents. No one does. I'm not promoting that. But I can see that as, you know, an interim life-saving, you know, mechanism of some sorts, you know, for those extreme circumstances. So I didn't know that the Clackamas Service Center distributed that. I didn't know that. Hold on. We don't know that's true.

Okay. Correct.

I do believe, I have not had a detailed conversation. I mean, obviously you guys are getting this email, but what I do understand is that if any, there has been no funding from Clackamas that has gone to or been spent on Clackamas Service Center for tents in the last few months and anything that they may have done came from the Multnomah County stockpile of tents. So what I'm trying to say is that from what I know is of what we have spent and what we have funding for, they have not spent any Clackamas resources on any type of tents or distribution within the last few months. But there was a policy and an opening in Multnomah County for many, many, many years that just recently closed down. And if there had been any involvement, it would have come from the stockpile. that Multnomah County was providing to providers.

If I could just finish that, and that being that I interpreted from the voicemail that the mayor left that their strategy was if they were supplying money, granted, I don't doubt that, you know, we don't have program money to go towards tents, right, is what we're saying, essentially. We don't do that.

We we do allow in very limited circumstances when it is survival Commissioner in this particular instance that came up with that mayor Wilson is bringing up. We had no involvement in But very rarely and on when it is a life-saving decision We do allow the purchase of survival gear with their flexible funds.

So the way I interpreted his message and I could have interpreted wrong is was that if one of their folks that receives city money, in his case, city money, for services, that if they distributed tents, that they would essentially cut them off, that they would not provide any services, period, if they were distributing tents. Again, I think that scenario is different. They have overnight shelter, right? A lot of it, a lot of capacity. For 365, we don't have that. Yeah.

All right, Commissioner Helm.

So my understanding, and I did speak with Mayor Wilson over the weekend, last weekend, is that they have a policy, a no-tent policy in the city of Portland that people from Multnomah County are coming over to the Clackamas Service Center and getting tents. I'm just repeating what I've heard. And then going back into Multnomah County. And then two days later, those tents are confiscated and they come back to Clackamas Service Center for more tents. So that's his issue is that we are continuing to hand out tents. to people from Manoma County where there is a ban. So I said, this is not my wheelhouse. I'm gonna call the person I know best for this, which is Prandi Johnson, right? I called her. We had a very interesting conversation about it. I connected those two and I said, you guys need to discuss this. This is a bigger issue than just tents. It's coming down to tents because what Mayor Wilson is trying to do to eliminate camping in the city of Portland. I agree with him. He's in crisis mode. He's trying to fix something. But it comes down to more than just tents. So Brandy gave a whole new kind of perspective on it, which enlightened me. And also, there needs to be some data on whether this is working in the city of Portland, right? I mean, where are these people going? Do they really have a shelter bed? What are those metrics? So anyway, there's been some... articles kind of shared with me. I'm trying to read through them about what is really happening with that. And the sweeps have been successful, but the results of those sweeps, we don't know what that really is. So I'm concerned about humanity. I'm concerned about the end result of everything. And I called him back and told him what I had said. I said, I'm going to hook you up with Brandy because she is boots on the ground with these people and she can kind of give you a little different insight into it. So I just, but that was, and he said SHS funds, some of our SHS funds goes to Clackamas Service Center and also true that grocers are kind of taking the brunt of this because the people get the tents and they set up camp near a grocery store and then steal from those grocery stores, right? So it's kind of a cycle that he's trying to break. So, again, not my wheelhouse. I'm just passing on what I heard just so that we know kind of the bigger issue. So, yeah.

All right. Thank you. One comment, and then I'll go to you, Commissioner West. I think that, on one hand, I can appreciate Mayor Wilson's efforts and tenacity to address the issue. I think that, you know, one example I kind of see is that, you know, downtown Portland, there were tent after tent and a whole block, and they have worked really hard to create shelters. And I think that if there is a place to go, that I think is the most important thing. And so they have made a lot of progress on that. So which kind of brings me back to what I'd like to ask you to talk about our shelters, what's in the future, which is some stuff is very exciting, and really kind of educate the public about really what's coming for us. Because I think that is important to help address this population. So Shannon or Phillip, you want to talk about that?

Thank you very much for the question chair. I'm very excited to say that we are just forwarding to you after agreeing with Metro on the structure of an IGA for seven million dollars in new funding dedicated to a permanent at least one permanent shelter in Clackamas County as you know we primarily use the motel sheltering system and this will allow us to have permanent I'm sorry permanent shelter capacity within Clackamas County and you should be seeing that for approval in the coming weeks and we've been conducting a property search to see if we could find a potential perfect location for a new shelter so far we haven't landed on anything precisely but we're also prepared at the same time as Hopefully that you approve the intergovernmental agreement with Metro to release a request for interest into the community to come to us with their ideas. And we have heard from trusted and respected community partners that they have some excellent locations in mind for shelter capacity. So we expect to be able to hopefully announce new shelters and their locations potentially by the end of this year. So a very important step for Clackamas that has not had a permanent shelter location in our community.

Yeah, that's very exciting. I think the other thing I wanted to comment, and you know a lot more about this than I do because you're so involved in it, but it's the father's heart and loved one, right? And, you know, one of the things in meeting with staff there and having them educate me about some of the things is, you know, their goal is to get them to come there, right, and over time work in getting long-term housing available. But I think the thing that really resonated with me is their goal is also to educate them that they don't need to pack around all this stuff. Right. That they can go there and come there. And if they need supplies to last them a night, you know, so be it. And that's kind of their opportunity to kind of say, hey, let's kind of work on a long-term plan of getting you into housing or shelter. Right. I do think this county is lacking shelter and I'm excited to see that and I and I and really the philosophy of working with his population into longer-term housing so With that I'm gonna go to Commissioner West and then Martha Thank you.

So unsanctioned camping is not as common in Clackamas County. We're working on some more low, low barrier, you know, spoke to the shelter site, but we do have the stabilization center. We do have Clackamas Village. We do have some resources. And so in those instances where you said it's like really, really rare to need to give somebody those survival resources like a tent or whatever, are we not utilizing those new resources now as an option to then get, and it's also transitional before permanent supportive. So like we're taking this care continuum approach.

Absolutely, Commissioner. I mean, our first priority is to get folks directly into transitional housing or or into permanent housing. But as you know, and we take every available opportunity to move folks in. Our outreach teams work, as Commissioner Savas mentioned, sometimes for many months before we're able to find the right opportunity to get folks in, and we have an opening. But again, what I will say is we do not have a tent distribution policy in Clackamas. In fact... In fact, we don't, but we do allow for survival gear in just very, very limited circumstances.

I mean, that's with us, but let's say Clackamas Services, who does receive a good amount of money from us, is working with Multnomah County and taking those tents and helping creating that cycle. We're trying to stop... That would be a conversation regardless if it's us not funding it. It impacts our neighbors and it impacts our own community and it's counterproductive and against the policy of one of their largest funders. That's where I would say, okay, maybe it's not our money specifically, but we have the mayor of Portland calling that's concerned about some of our service providers that are engaging in this or have been. What does that conversation look like with if it is Clackamas? I'm not sure the details exactly. If we do a review, we find there's history of that. What's our next step to say they're kind of acting in a way that's counterproductive, not just to the city of Portland, but to the policies of Clackamas County?

Well, I think your suggestion to do a review and determine, you know, this is the only complaint we've received that's coming in from Mayor Wilson. We do not have the same situation in Clackamas or our cities that had existed in Portland for many years. So I do think doing review, making sure that we have accurate facts and information And then I think coming back and talking to you about setting policy guidance for our providers, there is a difference. And I think most of our providers do an excellent job of creating that balance between those serious safety situations that folks need survival gear. And survival care can be a tarp. It can be a warm coat. It could be food, right? It isn't always just what we think of with the tent. And balancing issues that may exist in the in the urban core. There is a there is a difference between the two So we're happy to do a fuller review And come back and talk to this board about the ultimate guidance and then of course have any conversations with any of our partners If we determine based on that review that there's that there's some information that we would ask them to do something differently

Thank you, Shannon. Thank you. All right.

Patricia Schrader.

So when are we going to get a full briefing of, you know, the shelter space that you're looking for in terms of finding a spot to build something? This is kind of the first I've heard of it. Bad on me, but I'm curious as to the timeline and when will we get a more extensive briefing? We should be coming to you.

I don't know. I think we'll be with you sometime in June we just are filing the documents now because we just worked out the agreement with Multnomah County and I'm sorry with Metro Regional Government this is the administrative share that Metro had of their administrative expenses that they provided funding to the city of Portland for $15 million to Washington County and then Clackamas County for $7 million. So we requested that for the acquisition of a new shelter site in Clackamas. But we don't have a site yet. But we are going to be coming and talking to you in more detail about that hopefully this month.

I'm wondering, so you have people out there then, citizens and other providers looking for space?

We did talk to a broker to look for potential places so that we could determine if there was a place that we could do another village-style shelter or was a perfect site for more of a congregate shelter. It was just a search based on some parameters that we talked to the board about a few months ago But that has not proved fruitful yet. But as we talked to you the board about We we're gonna go on to tandem track so to do our own property search and then kind of do what we would call requests for expressions of interest and in case there are folks who are working in the community who have a perfect site or building that they would like to bring forward so um after we um after we come and talk to you get the board's blessing of course on the on the iga we would come talk to you about the proposed next steps for that and that literally should be in the next couple weeks so that's in process thank you

So I think I just want to turn to my colleagues and make sure I'm kind of hearing the same thing as far as direction next steps but basically looking at our policy and our providers and really kind of what's some of those policy factors now bring it back and discuss it at another The other thing I would really like to know, too, is how many tents are we talking about, too? And if they are being distributed, you know, do we have any idea what those are? So is that kind of what I'm hearing from you, that you want to come back with more information?

I think it's something we should be providing oversight to, so I think it's good information for us to have.

Is that all right with you, Paul?

Yeah, yeah. I think having a policy and understanding the system as we're growing this out is important. I appreciate what Shannon just shared with us with regards to a future site. I would anticipate a lot of nimbyism, no matter where you put it. So I think that's another conversation. So finding a site that is easier to mitigate than not would be ideal.

I know you said perfect site, and I'm like, oh. No such thing. No such thing, yeah.

Yeah, and I think it's easy to forget how big this county is and how diverse it is to Mount Hood, to right to the edge of Portland, right? We have homeless populations throughout this county in it and it does vary So I think just making sure we're taking an open look at how we're providing in the rural area, too Which is also really important. So Thank you both very much. Do you is that clear enough on direction Gary come back to you at a policy session? All right.

So What do you have next Gary is thank you final item and issues is Commissioner communications and you have an 11 a.m. Policy session All right

All right. I'm going to turn to my right, which I always do, Martha. So what do you have there?

Thank you, Big Mother. I appreciate that.

We decided you're my big brother and I'm your little sister here.

In any case, great job on the budget last week. It was pretty grueling. It was like long hours. I think we came through with flying colors. It was... The budget meetings are really always that week of, you know, just really trying to dig through things. And I think we've done an excellent job for the county. So I want to thank my colleagues, Commissioner Stavis and Commissioner Helm, the new chair. and Commissioner Benn for sticking it out all those hours. Although I did hear from a friend who said, boy, at the end of it, you were just ready to jump out of your chair pretty quick. And I did because I had dogs at home that were probably tearing about my house. But I survived in any case. I wanted to give a shout-out to Parrot Creek. I went to the gala. It happened to be in Lake Oswego the other night. It was a great evening. And as many of you know, we used to actually own Parrot Creek. We handed that land over to them. Paul, you remember that, right? We had went through that whole process. And so now they are a very, very successful nonprofit. There was great attendance, lots of dollars raised, and they are really becoming, I think, one of the shining star providers for youth. And they've branched out also into—they had a young woman speak who was homeless, who, pregnant, had a baby, and they helped her find housing. So they're doing— Not just youth, but they're branching out into other arenas where they can be of help to people. So that's about all I have. And great. We'll get us ready for 11. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Salvas.

Yeah, well, it was a very tough week, as I tell people that have reached out to me that either watched it while it was happening or watched the tapes. And a lot of them that watched the tapes said, oh my gosh. You know, a lot of questions and concerns. But I'm going to start out with the good aspect of this. Good aspect of this, I think that the... the work group that we put together had paid dividends. It really showed, people acknowledged that. A lot of comments along the lines that it was not didn't have an adversarial spirit to it like it has in the past. And I appreciate everyone, the sheriff and her staff, this board and our staff. It was tough, right? And I think that's to be expected. And I think that's part of the, I think the public expects us to have some difficult conversations in difficult times about taxpayer dollars and whatnot. I' m starting with that and say I want to thank everyone here today that are present and those that were part of the process. Much appreciate that. I hope that next year is even smoother. We heard comments like maybe we should continue on in some form or fashion with a different scope or a different mission for the work group. I'm not here to talk about that today, but I mentioned it during last week, and again, I'm kind of suffering from PTSD like a lot of us are over how difficult that was. But there were some things that troubled me. I'm not saying that they're necessarily nefarious, though some have, but my point is this, is that we put a lot of effort, and the Budget Committee last year had talked about you know, maybe we should take over the sheriff's budget. And I think the compromise has been, I won't say a compromise that we discussed, but the middle ground we had was we'll do light item budgeting, right? And so we had spent months really talking about that and considering it. And I feel a little bit... disenfranchised of you. I'll use that word. Maybe that's not the right word, but I'll use that. I feel disenfranchised that something that we had spent a lot of time on and strategized on, that we started a budget meeting on, that we can, we can, we can, up until the 11th hour, and say, oh, no, you can't. I'm sorry, it's not acceptable. And I would like to see, I know there's a couple weeks left or three weeks here before we actually approve the budget. I told Gary yesterday that I was inclined to put on issues today, an explanation or how we get there, how we get before we approve the budget here in a couple weeks, how we get to some level of program detail as we discussed and actually voted on from along that way. I'm not going to be comfortable unless we do, but I am going to put on issues for next Tuesday. I don't know if staff will have all the answers, but I do want to come back and say, how do we do this? And maybe we can't implement it in the system, but I think in the budget that we are legally, I'm told, That we are legally required to submit to the state for our budget that we can actually do that and then incorporate the software elements afterwards but I do think that we need to work in the constraints and If we need to get outside expertise You know as I told Gary I've done this before and You know, I can hire someone out of my own dime. I'm willing to do that. But I hope we don't want to get there. That can give us some neutral input as to how we do that. But to say we can't do it when other governments are, I can't reconcile that. So somehow I want to get there. So I just want to let you all know, Gary, I want this on issues for next Tuesday. Chair, I yield back.

Yeah, budget, I slept all weekend after budget week. It was long and it was tough. And there was a good healthy wrestling that happened and tension. Um, I don't think at least, I don't know if I don't, you know, I mean, some limited experience, but I don't think it's common to have a budget committee really be willing to dive in into, uh, details of a public budget in that way or a large government budget in that way to really try to figure out, are we doing the best with these issues? taxpayer resources and the money that taxpayers gave to us. And so I think it was super healthy that the public saw us deal with that tension. Now, I totally agree with you, Commissioner Saab, as part of the strategy the whole time. for a long time was how can we look at the details and make good fiscal decisions based on those details. We were told we could do that. Then we were told we couldn't. Then we were told we have to be careful of the constitutional authority for the sheriff to structure her own budget. Then we were, even within the meeting, it seemed to have some conflict and it caused confusion. I do think that it would be really beneficial to answer that question once and for all in a way that helps us be more prepared going forward. And so I would support that. I know that we have later this month, it's this body right here that has to adopt the actual budget. We've got the recommendation from the budget committee. but then it comes before us again and i don't i think there's still a few unanswered questions that didn't get dealt with within the budget committee when they had when they made the recommendation to adopt the budget the way they did so we still have more to do there i would support your effort to bring this back next issues, if you would like. So if you need another commissioner, you have my support. And I shared those same concerns. And it was exhausting and it was tough. But I do think the sheriff's office in particular did an excellent job staying engaged with us and answering tough questions. Many of those were on the fly. I see Patrick. Oh, hello, Sheriff Brandenburg is here now, too. So I appreciate, you know, putting differences aside and all realizing where we have a lot in common, where our intentions were in common, and all of us wanting to move forward in a good, structured, and healthy way. And, you know, this is just how the sausage is somewhat made, but at least the public can know in Clackamas County that... We are doing our utmost to do the right thing with those budgets. So I would support that. It's been, even outside of the Budget Committee, still a very busy week. And it's going to be a busy summer moving forward. But I'll leave my comments at that. But I would like to somewhat echo your concerns, Commissioner Savas.

Commissioner Hillman.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, someone asked, did budget go better this year than last year? And I said, I think it was worse.

It was longer.

ANGRA is not necessarily, yeah, the dynamics were different. I will say it was less contentious, and I think the work group helped with that. But what I felt we did, and again, I thank all of my colleagues and staff and everyone for engaging. It's a tough process, and we have limited dollars, and we're trying very hard to figure out where to put those dollars. So that said, I agree with Commissioner Savas that we need to bring this back. Next week, I want to talk about our budget process. And we have talked about doing line item with the sheriff's office, which I'm not opposed to. But I think making that decision in the middle of our... budget week, I think we would have needed another two weeks to do that by program, right? I'm like, yeah, I thought we were going to review it, not like decide things. We will need to find out what it is in our purview. And I made several comments that our job is to approve the dollar amount. It's the sheriff's job to figure out where to spend it and make our citizens feel like they're safe in our community. So I want to figure out how to get back into maybe the work group on a quarterly basis, monthly basis, I don't know how often. But just so we can work on these line items that I think we have concerns about. and address them. But I felt like we were arguing more with ourselves than with the people that were coming and doing presentation. It's like, what is it? And yes, we do get conflicting information. But it's that or we make this a two-week long process you know budget week can't be uh three days with you know potential fourth fifth sixth day i think we either make it a longer process and and finish early yay or we just spread it out over a time period where we can delve into the things we really feel like we need to address so um That's the budget. I do want to ask my colleagues about something that is kind of on my radar as being something we should get ahead of, and that is a policy discussion on data centers. And I think we need to get ahead of this. I think based on what I'm reading that's happening across the country and the amount of very, very unhappy people that are now living near these data centers and what it's doing to disrupt their lives is going to be a concern for us. So I'd like to have a discussion on it and whether it's something, if there's a... policy out there in other places, or just things that we need to be aware of. Because as far as I know, and I asked Gary about this yesterday, DTD hasn't gotten any application for data centers thankfully we don't have the space for these ones that are two football fields big right but but I want to even if they're smaller and there's many of them the the consequences to our citizens can be very very big so I just I just think it should be a policy discussion coming up if you guys are okay with that right and I agree with you to have that discussion about that I think that

When I attended NACO, that was one of the things I wanted to follow up on, is across the country about data centers and their policy decisions. It was very informative around the country. Some of the policy decisions are they have to have their own water source, recirculating water source. They have to have a restriction on sound ordinances for fans. And then the power is a whole other issue and options on that.

And I just want to say I'm neutral on it. I'm not anti-data centers. I'm not pro-data centers. I just want to make sure we understand what would we be allowing when it happens. So just so that anyone out there doesn't think that I'm like, no data centers, no. I mean, we're going to need them. Hey, do you like these, right? Are you using AI? We're going to need these things. So I just want to be proactive.

Yeah, and I just want to mention that the National Association of counties has taken this up in the last You know Event we had you know the legislative conference they had a whole panel on this and one of the folks who is running for president is from Loudoun County, Virginia, which is like a major center databases and But the biggest issue I hear from people, it's the water, it's the electricity, and who's paying for it. And the sound, the humming, the sound in the whole, yeah. And yet when we have these in our hand, as you mentioned, we're using it every day. So we're part of the problem in a way. But it's been very controversial across the nation.

All right. So I know we have one. We're going to move right on and then take a break and then come back. Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead. Just on this topic, I think maybe I know that people can apply and build what they want to build, right? And I know there's restrictions on that, but I would say on these data centers, the issue I think is more resource-intensive facilities like this. As Chair Roberts identified, power, water, those are resources. Are we taking something that otherwise would need a capacity for things like whether it's farming or whether it's just power for keep the lights on, right? So how that is done, I think we could have standing based on something that's resource-intensive in an area where maybe those resources aren't abundant. And back in the day, we used the word moratoriums. We don't have enough water. We don't have enough power. So therefore, until you get there, let's leave it there and yield back.

All right. Yeah, I just want to quickly pivot back to the budget. Sorry. A couple highlights that I think we're all really proud of. One, we worked really hard with DA Wentworth and the sheriff and her team and the budget committee to protect the operations for the Family Justice Center. I think we all made a very loud declaration that we prioritize the Family Justice Center and its future involvement in the community when it deals with very difficult situations, often around domestic violence and other specifically violence against women and children. We need the Family Justice Center, and we appreciate the work that they do. And it's unfortunate that we need those services so often, but that's just the reality, and they do good work. You know, we were able to help protect a number of county jobs that do good work that were put up and got layoff notices. But many of them probably, I don't know, it's not my total decision, but it looks like there's going to be some funding or structure available to keep some of those positions. That was a lot of talk about what took so long and how do we navigate that and where do we find those dollars and what that looks like. So those are very good things, even though it was hard. Those priorities were met. And so I think that we were tired and it was hard. We can hang our hat on those things.

Right. And I'll just, because we have to continue on here, I'll just have a quick comment. So while it was long and while it was difficult, I felt like really finance, sheriff's office finance, Gary and a tremendous amount of other staff that have really all came together and worked hard So I was pleased about that. And moving forward, I really believe it's only going to get better. Kind of a time to recognize how stressful that is for employees that have been given notice. That is, I guess, my apologies for that, because they're sitting there thinking about their livelihood and how they're going to pay their bills. And so I was pleased we were able to keep those positions. So I do think we should have a conversation another time kind of following up with Commissioner Helms said is really what does kind of this future budget process look like and I think one of the things that that I saw clear is a lot of questions that would come up is kind of the lack of education on a lot of the services that are provided where that money goes and so I would encourage not at the trying to put this all into the budget process, but throughout the year schedule stuff so that it isn't just a brutal time to try and comprehend all that. And the very last thing, I know Gary probably isn't thrilled about this, but I'm going to say this, Gary, is that two years now I've sat in, and I don't interrupt Gary, but I have all the directors present their budget. And Gary asked questions, and there's a lot of back-and-forth discussion, and it really has been very insightful for me to hear. I know it's Gary's meeting, and so I appreciate you kind of letting me sit on that, but perhaps I can recruit one more commissioner to sit in there with me and really hear kind of where the overall departments are countywide. I felt like, to me, it was personally helpful, so... Anyway, enough about that. Thrilled we're kind of on the next step forward on the budget process. So this will now conclude our issues and updates, but we're going to move directly to our policy session of the day. I think we're going to do one here and then take a break, if I understand it correctly, right? Yes. So, Gary, what do you have? Well, would you like to take a short five-minute break right now? Would that be all right? How does the crew feel here? Pound through? Do you think this will take half an hour? At least. Let's take a five-minute break. We'll probably take a while.

Well, go ahead and reconvene. Policy session, what do you have for us, Gary? Thank you. This first policy session is public safety, local option levy, next steps, part two. We had part one yesterday, or yesterday, last Monday, Tuesday. I forgot the days. Last week you had an initial session on what to do next about the public safety, local option levy after the voters said no at the election. Today we want to continue that discussion with you on next steps. Presenting is Sheriff Angela Brandenburg. and Tony Maranek, policy advisor in the board's office. I'm not sure who wants to go first, but please go ahead.

I'll kick it off. Tony Maranek, I am a policy advisor at the Office of County Administration. Chair Roberts, commissioners, thank you for having me today. As you all know, the measure that would have renewed the current public safety local option levy has not passed or will not pass. mathematical impossibility at this point. I do want to clarify, the current levy will be assessed for the current tax year. The next tax year, those positions are in the FY26-27 budget. This is not a this fiscal year or next fiscal year issue. This is a next next fiscal year issue for the public who are listening and hearing that the levy has failed. I want to clarify that. However, in order to continue into FY27-28, we will need to get some kind of renewal on the books before July of 2027. How we get there is a discussion we're gonna have over the next few months and we're coming here today to continue that conversation and start working on what that effort might look like. There are a couple of opportunities in front of the board. The board could refer a renewal to any election cycle. I note, however, that the March and August election cycles require the so-called double majority. A majority of registered voters must participate and a majority of participating voters must approve. So that tends to rule out the March and August options and leaves us with November of 2026 or May of 2027. Not seeking specific direction on that today, but more of a pulse check, guidance. Which option might we want to plan for and consider? A November 2026 referral is a shorter roadmap. We're climbing Mount Hood. We need to start that climb today. A May of 2027 roadmap, we're climbing Mount Denali. We've got a little time, but we still need to get the journey started. We've heard previously the board is interested in potentially town halls, some polling, community engagement, and working to build relationships with our partners to make the next attempt more successful. With that, I'll turn it over to Sheriff Brandenburg who has new remarks.

Thank you. I think you covered it. Keep it short. I think we know that we're here. The clock is ticking for decisions. However, I caution us to listen to the people that voted no, find out the why, so we can determine the direction, if any, that we go with the levy. And so what I'm hearing from folks is that it's all over the board, but I think we really need to get as close to the why so we can determine what the next steps are, whether that's polling or combination of things, listening sessions with folks, After hours is what I'm hearing. After 6 p.m., people are working during the day, perhaps Saturday, and having multiple sessions so that folks can come in person and I think testify via Zoom if they would like as well so that we can hear the why. Before we can really go, whatever direction you determine. So that is my... input and happy to take questions have a great discussion but for having staff decide you know what direction we need to go to make that happen quickly.

All right, thank you commissioner says.

Well, thanks, Sheriff. I do agree. We got to get to the whys, all the whys, right? Because as you kind of correctly stated out, there's a lot of different reasons why people voted against it. You know, the one, when it comes to the polling, I'm, again, I think it's valuable, but I think not at this moment. I really think that we need to be aggressive and do the listing sessions or town halls however, you know, as soon as possible and in many of them as possible up front. The vote will be certified here pretty soon and when it is certified, we can do some analysis of those stats to figure out what areas of the county supported it and geographically and also other information about the voters that voted for, not for, but the voters that voted on that issue not individually, but essentially the demographics, we get a better idea of that, of the areas and the type of voters by voter registration that participated in that vote. One of the things that does come to mind, I've heard a lot, and I really strongly agree, and I kind of go back to the last polling. So the last polling, interestingly enough, showed that the higher millage rates had a higher propensity to pass by the analysis that was done by the pollster who was sitting right where you are when We heard them earlier in the year. And I think the reason that there was a higher likelihood that they would pay a higher rate was there was a value statement in there. They would get more, right? There was something in it, right? And I think that there is, you know, I won't say, well, maybe it's confusion or misunderstanding or reality, frankly, that the current rate is And the services provided by the current rate is not attainable by that current dollar amount. We can't offer the same positions financially because of inflation and another of things that have been revealed as to the finances with CCSO. So we didn't have a clear perspective of how we ever arrived at the original levy amount. And I say original, I'm going way back. And to this one, to some degree, I think that the... The revelations by your your most recent hirings of you know a year ago to a year 13 14 months ago of Mr. Williams and others that that has actually revealed a different calculation of what that rate would be amongst other things like inflation and contracts and so forth. So, you know, that putting that all together, you know, it's hard to say there's a value statement in there, right? How do you propose that, you know, what happened? Why did it move that many cents per thousand? So if, you know, again, I think it's how we, again, propose a value statement or make the argument that there's value at whichever rate. It's not about the rate so much as it is what the level of service is going to be and educating folks and answering those questions. So I think we need to, again, get out there, hear all those concerns, get the numbers, hear all the different whys, and try to address them as fast as possible. And I see what's in the packet here. I think we need to be more aggressive than having one proposed town hall for September. I think we have to do a heck of a lot more than that. Chair, I yield back.

All right. One of the things that Paul had mentioned was something sooner than September, which I agree. And I think that it really echoes a lot of the sentiments actually I've heard, and that is listening really to the people and the citizens of this county, trying to understand the why. And to me, that's really step one. And the polling, which was done, right, where you talked about it, we had higher success if we asked for more money when that polling was done, which I thought was a little odd. But when you take into the totality of our economy downturn, I feel like it has gotten worse. And with the price of gas, I don't even think the war had started when that polling was done. With the increased rates of everything else, I really do believe people are struggling and they just literally couldn't afford this, perhaps. But we're not going to know for sure until we ask that question and trying to figure out why they decided not to support it and I also think it's important geographically to kind of identify where in the county and that might be some of the places we start by listening in those areas so I Would you know really support moving as quickly as we can on this? I mean, I'm not saying we're gonna go out in November, but if we did if that's what was determined by a workgroup and Citizens that said hey, we think you need to reduce things or you need to do this or that we bring it back to the table and move quickly, I think waiting could it could really create even more issues I think so I would really support trying to put together a workgroup getting listening sessions why it's really also fresh in people's minds this you know things could change and again but that's where I'd be leaning Commissioner West you had some thoughts yeah this may if you look at the five most populated counties that's Marion Washington Clackamas Lane

I think I mixed up the order there at the end. The only real county to see passage is Multnomah County of a couple operational levies. Washington County didn't have anything significant on it before its voters for an operational levy. Clackamas County, all three failed. So not just the sheriff's levy, but the Canby School District levy. And then there was a city, a River Grove levy that also failed by... over 60%. Lane County had a split on it, and it barely passed its OSU extension and 4-H levy, barely. But the fire authority levy did fail. So we're talking about public safety across the board failed. Marion County both failed. It was a Woodburn fire levy, and then the state and fire district levy failed. Okay. So there's a couple things here. One, I think that one of the only things you hear in the media right now is Oregon's high tax rate. We see population leaving. We see businesses closing. We see tax fatigue overall. They're saying we've given you enough money. Now just deal with it with what we've given with you. Tough luck. And that's kind of where a lot of your voters are in specifically more suburban, less urban counties, where Multnomah County is the most urban of all the counties. I think the legislature and the governor did local governments a huge disservice by moving intentionally the gas tax, the transportation tax, which was a historic, not just a failure, historic failure by over 80% across all political spectrums. Oregonians were a no pretty loudly on that. And if you look at what's on the ballot, and I'm just talking to my own neighbors, Oregonians It was the gas tax, then it was your local levies after that, and anything that they were just done with being taxed. So that gas tax really hurt local governments, and we all said that to the legislature and to the governor, but... It didn't matter for political reasons, and it's solely for political reasons. Nobody wanted to face that hyper unpopular gas tax in November in the general, so they moved it to the May election and local governments be damned. does speak to the overall environment and the feeling and the sentiment of people who are having an affordability crisis um in their lives right now and they realize that much of that crisis was created by other oregonians and elected officials asking for more and treating them like a piggy bank and so i don't know how we get over that um This levy, as we know, is super catastrophic if we can't get it passed. I think we have a different story to tell. But I think that that's why it failed. I mean, the picture's pretty clear that a lot of Oregonians are like, we've given you plenty. Like, they're mad about paying the SHS tax. They are. Like, at least in Clackamas County, we actually do something productive with that money. But they're tired of seeing, like, oh, I found another $100 million for housing and homelessness. Oh, you know, we spent over a billion, and the problem's getting worse. Like, it's all that they're seeing on top of, like, high gas prices. Oh, PGE wants to take more out of your pocketbook, so let's just take more of that working family because, you know, we never cost this much of electricity, but guess what it does now because we have, you know, all of these initiatives and great ideas that were passed by the legislature, executive orders by the government that just make energy cost a lot higher without actually making any difference with climate change or the environment, but it ideologically feels good to them, so they just expect you to pay for it. That's why they said no. I don't know how many focus groups we can do. I don't know how much polling we can do. I don't know if we need to do any polling. I mean, we just had the best poll there is. They voted. But how do we get around that is an obligation that we have. I don't know if it's going to feel much different in November. My only question is, is do we have, we can't wait until May of 27. It has to be decided by this November. Am I correct?

Yeah.

The board could refer something to November or May. The challenge with referring something in May... This is your last shot. Correct. Okay. If it doesn't succeed in May, then mid-budget cycle, we are making adjustments.

Are we allowed to go back to the exact same millage rate and say, hey, if you want this service you're accustomed to, this is actually what it costs now, and try again? Or is that, like, not allowed? Do we have to change the ask?

I think you can ask for whatever you would like. I think my suggestion is that's one of the things that we listen to the people is what you're saying. They just can't afford anymore that same rate they can afford. And I've heard that from folks who have given me their input. And that should be one of the questions is if it stayed the same rate. What services can we deliver? And so that is something that I will come to you and I will piece out the levy in pieces and we can take a look and see what those services are. If the choice is to leave the same rate, your taxes do not increase, but these are the services you're going to receive. Obviously, it's not all of the services because we won't be able to provide all the services, but that will be, my team is going to work on piecing that out for you. It can be an option.

Sheriff Brandenburg, are we, this just seems unsustainable. I feel like we're putting duct tape on a sinking ship a little bit, or we're bailing out, but the water's coming in faster than we can bail. Do you see this as a sustainable model in which to fund your department?

Well, I can tell you that former Sheriff Roberts had a levy that never came out for an increase that was lived within the collection rate and sustained the operations. And so it is doable. it is it is doable but at what rate and so to me if it was an increase that we asked folks to pick up if we we talked to folks if that was the problem and they're okay with some form of a levy that we give you the services that staying with that same rate that's an option and what the services that we can provide that will benefit the county.

What will that do to staffing?

I don't know. I don't have those numbers yet. It will be reduced because the levy is staffing for the most part. It is our body-worn camera program, but it is 92 positions across the jail, investigations, patrol.

I have no idea how you do. We can do this work or you can do this work if even at the current level it's just unsustainable. And I... I... I don't know how we make that case.

I'll leave it that all right Commissioner Schrader I might suggest And not that it is worth anything. I've done a lot of campaigns and At this point, given what I've been hearing, is that there is also a perception problem out there. For example, in Lake Oswego, the perception was we were paying for an enhanced law enforcement district for a particular area. So there is a messaging thing. It's like, well, what's in it for me? You're going to raise my taxes, but these services or additional services will not necessarily... impact me. So there's a perception problem that needs to be displaced with that. Because I think that was, again, what I was hearing on the street, true or not, but that was that somehow this has to be vetted as it's going to, the whole, you know, that whole county is going to be, because this is a county-wide vote, but most of it is usually concentrated in the urban unincorporated area, right? Or you do move people around with this levy to other areas of the county. Yep.

It comes back to, Commissioner, it's the perception that it's all patrol. And patrol actually is, I think, a smaller piece of the levy. It's the jail. It's over 100 jail beds, which absolutely benefits the county. And so mental health medical beds that I know this commission had wanted to fund staffing that unable to do that. And so that was part of the levy. This last 2021 increase was that because... We have become the de facto mental health care for folks coming through and helping folks when they come into custody. So there are pieces, and I think that's something that you're going to have to consider. What is the benefit? Hearing from our city partners, why should they pay for these services? And so I think part of that question for you to answer is, what is in the levy that benefits

Everyone across the county. I think that's got to be very clear and precise because it's a misconception out there right now. And I really think it drove a lot of at least, again, I'm only talking from what I was hearing on the street in my own community. But given the failure, I'm wondering if... That wasn't it across the board. I definitely would go for a November election. I think if we're going to do it, that's the best time to do it. That's just my political gut speaking here. I think that would be the best way to go. The big decision is if you drop it back, people think, oh, you didn't really need the money anyway. Okay. So I don't know. I would suspect that you would—we did it at 0.534, correct? Is that what we did? What was the rate? I should know this. I'm sorry. Yes. Well, I would probably go back at the same rate because you do need it. And to drop it back, I think, would send a signal to the electorate that there's a— Something well. Well, you really didn't need it. And so you were just yeah. Yeah and I Think there has to be a really robust campaign with mailers. I think that you need to do focus groups I think you need to do speaking engagements throughout the whole county There's good. There's gonna have to be a full court press Truly getting the message out and again saying how this is benefiting the entire County Okay, because that that's I don't think that that helped and the other thing I might mention It's not just our local taxation, which is I agree you we've overtaxed ourselves I think in Oregon which has been really difficult for people because they're like we can't afford this but I would also say that the things going on at the federal level have absolutely impacted affordability in a way that is really hitting people. Between the fuel costs and the inflation of food and other inflationary kind of things that are happening, people are unsettled, and that's something we have no control over. So I don't know how you overcome that hurdle, but I think you can overcome... Again, it's really about the whole county. It's not just about one area in the county. And did you hire or did we get someone to actually run a campaign on a daily basis that absolutely that's all they did?

Was that a question?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, Commissioner. Did we have somebody, like a consultant or anybody, or somebody on the ground who was a campaign manager? That would be me.

Okay, every day. All right. Commissioner, that brings me to my point. I appreciate and I hear what you're saying about I think we're going to hear some of what you've been hearing when we ask folks. But also, my other point is that we have to professionalize an educational campaign that the county, I think, hires to get the word out, educates the public. There's only so much that I can do, Iran. The Political Action Committee campaign donated monies from my command staff, and we really have to come together and work together and get the word out, educate folks. You know, I suspect that, well, We really need to work together, and I know that. Chair Roberts had said, hey, this has always fallen on the sheriff. Well, we all are in this together, and we need to work together. Electeds can talk differently than my staff. I can ask people to vote and educate my staff. our staff can only do the educational piece but as electeds we are a powerful force if we work together and I'm gonna keep harping on that we all have a role to play to get in the community and talk to folks and educate and to tell them we're spending their money the way it should be spent, and this is what you're going to get. But also be on the same page, which I agree with you, is having some sort of center, some nexus of somebody who is doing this professionally to get us all on the same page. So that is my other suggestion. A strong suggestion is that we do something to where we have a professional educational campaign.

Yeah, and what I remember doing is I looked at the date of the election, and then you back map. I actually had a whole chart of everything that had to happen at certain key points of the elections thing. This has to happen. So I had deadlines along the entire way. And it's one way to keep it front and center, and it's another way to make sure that all those pieces are happening correctly. In a way that you know way ahead of time it better happen today that you better get this piece of it done We're gonna miss an opportunity. Oh, so and I don't know. I mean, I've run them. I've been in them and Not that not that I'm an expert on it, but I found that I always found that management of how you do it helpful Anyway, that's just my two cents.

All right. Thank you commissioner helm and then Paul I

Do you, I think you were first, do you care? All right, so one thing you brought up, I think it was during budget week last week was, and one of the things that I, and I have talked to you about this too, is about messaging, right? And we just need to get the word out, not just, what you get, but what you don't, what you're not going to get. I'm not saying put a negative spin on it, but you're going to have fewer jail beds. You have the data, I think, about response times based on how many officers are out there. So it would result in this kind of response time instead of this. So I just think there's ways to message this, not Not the fear-based, but the reality-based, which I think for public safety, and I'll repeat Jamie Karn, he's always great at saying, on the worst day of your life, here's who you want to be there, right? And I... I just didn't see that. I just didn't see that going into this. I also think the BCC needs to have a letter in support. I think the voters pamphlet, I think people look at that and other groups that support this need to back you and say here's why we believe in public safety in Clackamas County. Here's our data. Our crimes have gone down significantly over the last few years, right? And we're known as the county of law and order and that we do prosecute. So I just, there's just, it's how you reach people. I mean, do you go to summer markets, right? Do you set up a 10 by 10 tent at a market so you can like get in front of people? I'm trying to think of the places like DOCA, like the Downtown Oregon City Association. They have their upcoming... for city celebration coming up. I mean, those are places where you're in front of people and you need to talk to people. And it's selling yourself, it's selling your product. And I think we have to really truly engage all of us. Because when people, I talked to people before this last one, and I asked them how they voted, and they said no, and I go, really? And they said, I can't afford it. I just can't afford it, right? They voted their pocketbook. But the end result of that, I think they need to know what the end result of that is going to be. So I'm... I'm convinced that, well, I also agree we need to go out in November. I hate to wait until May. I think that's going to be too late. But I think we need to do it now. There needs to be a real effort right now to get out in front of people. Back to you, Chair.

All right. Paul. I agree. We need to do something, something different. Right. So first of all, I just want to knock one thing off this double majority thing as far as March or August. I'll just tell you that in the past that had worked. But since motor voter registered more people. There is no way we're going to get to a double majority. So we've got to just rule that out. That's just not going to happen. And I think our 45% turnout was pretty incredible in the first place. But if you can't get it then with all those things going on, you're not going to get it for off-cycle March or August elections. I'm going to cross that one off. I'm going to go back to the other thing I discussed last week, and that was city support. Martha, you kind of touched on it. I can understand, and being at C4 and being involved with working with the cities at the same table for 20-some-odd years, a lot of misunderstandings about our tax system. And I'm going to be more specific than I was last week. Yes, I think I can see, you know, rationally why maybe someone would say, well, gee, we already have a police force in our city, you know, and so why would we want to have more deputies? And I think the sheriff identified it's more than that. It's the jail. But you know what? It's more than that. I mentioned this with... with Chair Roberts. It's also the DA and the courthouse and prosecuting. I mean, that's part of the system. It's not part of the levy per se, but the cost of doing that has gone up. So essentially, whether the cities want to look at it at their $2.40 millage rate, right, and the unincorporated are paying 297. So if you actually split that out and do the math, I would argue that if we did a deeper analysis that, you know what, the unincorporated are picking up the tab. for the increase in cost for prosecution, DA, and all those other things, to some degree jail, right? But we're backfilling that. And I think when you look at it in the end, I'm gonna just take a guess, a wager that, my wager is that that is now being subsidized by the unincorporated part of our tax rate. So I'm just gonna give you some numbers here. The unincorporated area in the ELED is paying 73 cents for that service. per thousand. That's more than the levy in total, even the new levy. The unincorporated area is paying 57 cents more per thousand. permanent on their tax rate, more than the city's. So that's buying something, just what is it? It's fuzzy, I get that. And then when you add that, and when you add the levy at either the current rate or the old rate, I mean, you're talking about a buck and a half to $1.84 more. that they're paying than someone in the city. So I think we need to have our, again, if it's a matter of getting the cities on board, I think we need to communicate that. And if we need to do a study, I would love if the cities would participate in that because I know everything comes in that, falls in that category, libraries and all these other things that we share on either the tax base. So there's a misunderstanding there, but we do need city support. Commissioner West, one small correction to all of the hills, parkway correction that passed in Washington County. And that was, I won't say a luxury, but that was not a need, that was a want. Right. So I want to make that distinction. So it did pass. So I want to put that out there by a fair amount, if I remember correctly.

Yeah.

Yeah. And I agree with Commissioner Helms point, you know, you know, when we're running for campaigning for everything, we were ever present. We're everywhere and we got to be everywhere. I think we're all taught that. Um, and, you know, when the sheriff, well, not the sheriff, when the fire department, you know, has a levy, right, or they're doing something, they're everywhere. They go to all the CPO meetings, they're ever-present, you know, and they're sprinting around. I know in this case, that's a lot of, a lot on the sheriff's shoulders, but we can all share in that, too, right? And the deputies, if there's someone willing to volunteer in their spare time to go to a CPO meeting and say, hey, you know, please support the levy, here's why, and so on. But I I think, again, I know you're going to work on it, but I think people need to know if it doesn't pass, what is it? You know, what's the loss, right? What do we do not, what is it that we lose if it doesn't pass? And secondly, if we did it at the same rate, also, what is it that we lose that we don't no longer get? I think the problem here has been created that we never had an inflation, an accurate amount for that. We wouldn't be in this position if the calculations for the services rendered match the millage rate, essentially, right? Everything in the levy. And I don't know if inflation, have an inflationary element so that in five years from now, if we see another spike in inflation, can we have an inflationary amount? I don't know the answer, but... Please look at that. And I'm reluctant to say it, but I'm going to say it. What if there was a choice? And I don't know. I know that sometimes there's been things on the ballot when a jurisdiction puts two things on the ballot and says, you know, if you vote... We're going to put both these on the ballot. The one that gets the most votes is the one that passes. The one that doesn't get enough votes is a lesser, right?

Like a rank choice on the levy?

Well, I don't know if that's possible. It's not called rank choice, but there have been. We put a measure on the ballot a long time ago in the district world when I was on districts. And we said whichever one passes is the one that we implement. And I can't remember exactly what. I'm not sure it was money. I think there was money tied to it, but I think it was more about a program. than it was anything else. But I'd like to look at that and see if that's possible so that they have a choice to say, okay, if you want the bare bones and serviceably compromise, it looks like this, or if you want to keep the current services, here's the current price for that. And but we I don't think we communicated that very well right and I think we need to communicate I think we need to come clean as I as I use those words are the Why did the rate go up so much for the same for the same thing? Why is why was there no value proposition and what was proposed and? And essentially the value was there it was just the chain the cost right that the cost of what that what that service is so again I I'll just stop there and yield back to you. We have a lot of work to do, and I think we've got to work aggressively.

All right, thanks. Commissioner.

Yeah, I'm just going to, we're asking them to pay approximately 17 cents more is what we asked them to approximately .166 cents, so about 17 cents. I mean, here's an awful idea. Is there somewhere else a different levy or some other place where we can say we can now retire or reduce this by 17 cents so it's net neutral to the taxpayer, but we're shifting the appropriate money to the resource we need? Like, you're going to probably get a lot more like, oh, well, in the long run, my property tax statement is going to kind of stay the same, but I'm giving less money to this over here, and I know that we're making a net neutral revenue position. I have no idea that's even feasible. I'm just thinking off the cuff here about all this. I don't know if that's a possibility. Or here's where we can get to where we're getting more revenue than usual to the taxpayer. Here's the truth. The general fund will probably have to subsidize the difference because there's no way you can, that law enforcement as a top party, a core function can function without the levy. There's just no way without that additional 17 cents. I don't think that any, I think all studies will show that. I don't know what we're going to, and I see you nodding, but I don't know what, I don't want to give away the precious general fund dollars, but it has to come from somewhere. And that is a core function to provide least the current level of service and we can't just be like hands up we don't have it I mean at a certain point if it gets as catastrophic as possible we're gonna have to figure out how how to do it I don't know what does you know this is this is beyond my tenure as a commissioner but I can vote for how many taxes I have voted for on probably one hand, and this was one of them. So I really tried to get everybody I talked to to vote for it too. I even got arguments with one of my neighbors. But he was like, nope. So I had a couple neighbors that I was shocked, like you said, Commissioner Helm. So I don't know. Where can we get to revenue neutral? That's a good argument to make, too. And then at the end of the day, it's all hands on decks next time around. That means all elected officials that care about law enforcement in Clackamas County, that's mayors, city councilors, that's the sheriffs elected. um as elected leader and her and her leadership it's all of us on this board it is like using all of our spheres of influence to be like to really really make the case and the argument and to do the work and to be very very public and forward-facing and our need for the levy I think that will matter I don't believe that push really actually happened in a significant way for this levy um And I don't think it was like, OK, we have to get something on the ballot. But then there was no super organized, unified approach about how we can do that. I think that that was problematic. Also, we kind of assume people love law enforcement. We can't assume it anymore for the next time around.

Right. One last comment. And then I think Gary might have the direction needed. But I think. One of the things I think again is, I'll bring it kind of back to this, it's really, really important to listen to the people because if they're saying we can't flat afford it and we continue to have a higher rate, I think they're going to take that as we're not listening. So I think a lot of consideration has to go into what was at the issue. And second of all, this is where I'm kind of speaking to all county departments. is if this fails, number one, this county is going to have to form its core responsibility and statutory authority. And I unfortunately would foresee a lot of other major cuts in this county, far beyond the sheriff's office, because we'll need so much funds to just continue any kind of core service. And it will still be a reduction. So I think that as I don't My philosophy has never been to try and intimidate or scare the public, but to be factual. And the facts are this. This pays for this. If we do not receive the money, this happens. And we're just very crystal clear on what that is and how much it costs. And so I think that's this difficult conversation that we all have to make sure we have the same facts and the same information as we carry that message forward.

with that Gary I do I feel like we have direction so I will hire a contractor which will cost money but you gave a cushion at the budget thank you so we'll use that unbudgeted funds to hire a contractor you have exactly 60 days to do this before your August recess which is a very very tight time frame to do all this outreach but we'll reprioritize this over your strategic plan and all other items that's the plan

Chair, can I just make one thing? Sure. One option. You know, when we, during the ELED discussion on Tuesday, I think it's important to say this. ELED that is still paying that fixed amount now has 12 less deputies.

Yeah.

Okay. That's a cut.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, no, I agree, and there's 44 vacant positions, and so it's already dramatically changed. So anyway, I think that, Gary, it's my understanding we don't really need a motion on this. Nope. Kind of made a statement, so unless there's any other comments, seeing none, we'll just go ahead and conclude our business meeting this morning. We have to be back here at 1.30. Well, welcome back, everyone, to Administrative Issues and Updates on June 2nd, 2026. We'll start out by County Administrator Gary Schmidt calling the roll for us. Yes, thank you, Chair.

Roll call.

Commissioner Schrader.

Here.

Commissioner Helm.

Here.

Commissioner Savas. Present. Chair Roberts. Here.

All right, would you introduce our first session for this afternoon?

Yes, the first session this afternoon is Annual Review of Solid Waste Collection Fees, presenting its Transportation and Development Team. Dan Johnson, the Director of Transportation and Development. Cheryl Bell, Assistant Director. Go ahead, please.

Thank you so much. Chair Roberts and Commissioners, we are here for our annual discussion about rate setting for garbage collection and recycling fees. provided through Clackamas County through its various service providers. I'm joined here by Cheryl Barrel, Assistant Director for the Department of Transportation Development, who's done a lot of collaborative work with our sustainability and solid waste group to do a deep dive into the current rates and fee structures that we have, the costs that our service providers are seeing. And she's here to share the results of that study and also share with you the recommendation that came forward from the Solid Waste Committee which is the recommendation we're proposing for approval today. I do want to remind the Board of County Commissioners we presented this, as it says, annually last year. The Board of County Commissioners at that point in time did make the choice to not raise the fees last year based off the information that was provided. And some of that's compounding this year with some of the rate increases that you're seeing. But we'll be glad to do a deeper dive if you have any questions about specifics on those numbers. So with that, Cheryl, take it away.

Good afternoon, Chair Roberts and Commissioners. As Dan said, this is something we do annually where we look at the solid waste fees and then bring to you the fee recommendations from the Solid Waste Commission. So right up front, too, I want to be transparent that we have a lot of decisions before you today, and these are fee increases. So I'm going to provide you with a brief background and overview and then presentation on the cost drivers. and then presentation of the proposed rates. And we're, of course, happy to support your deliberation as you consider each of these. And as Dan said, we have experts in the room if you have questions about the technical pieces behind it. So each year we do this annual review as in accordance with county code, garbage and recycling services are provided to the residents of Clackamas County through a franchise system. Under this system, the collectors offer similar services to all residents who get garbage and recycling in unincorporated Clackamas County and the cities of Happy Valley and Barlow. All customers who choose to receive garbage services have the ability to choose the size or cart or can that works best for them and the frequency that they prefer. And if they choose garbage services, they are provided with curbside recycling as that's required by state law. Under the franchise system, the county establishes the fees charged for the variety of services the county requires franchise collectors to offer. So through this rate setting process today, the county is setting a revenue model for the private businesses that provide these garbage and recycling services to our community. To assist in setting these fees, the annual review is conducted to evaluate known costs and the impact of these costs related on the fees, and then looking at the operating margin for the companies holding these franchises. As we've noted in presentations in the past, Clackamas County is consistent with other communities in Oregon where we try to target a rate of return of 10%, but there is an acceptable range of that rate of return, which is between 8% and 12%. From this operating margin, the franchise businesses cover costs and taxes, set aside reserves for operation and capital purchases, and it provides a return on ownership. The annual review considers known or set costs, so any action taken today cannot impact these costs that have already occurred. So kind of this grounding framework, it brings us to cost drivers that were considered for this year's review and the fees being proposed. The first cost driver and one we often talk about is the solid waste collection fees. These fees are charged when materials are unloaded at a transfer station and make up a significant component of the cost to provide garbage and recycling. The county and other jurisdictions in the metro area use the metro solid waste fees when performing the annual review as these fees are set through a public process. And as in years past, the county was actively engaged this year in this public fee setting process with metro. This engagement took a number of forms. Commissioner Schroeder this year participated in the Metro Regional Waste Advisory Committee. and this is really an important advocacy role as RWAC, advises Metro Council on solid waste related issues including the budget and fees. Both staff and Commissioner Schroeder provided comments as part of the RWAC meetings and then staff also provided comments in a memo directly to Metro regarding the rate setting. There was close coordination with other jurisdictional partners throughout this process to provide comments and feedback during the full engagement process with Metro. Through all these channels, the county advocated for smaller and more predictable fee increases with less volatility from year to year. Ultimately Metro approved increasing the solid waste disposal fee by 10% and the regional system fee by 5% These two fees go into the tip fee calculation the tip fees what's charged when you actually dump your materials and the tip fee this year raised eight point nine percent and So in addition to these solid waste fees, this year's review was also impacted by cost increases in labor, equipment, trucks, and not surprisingly, fuel. The review was also impacted, as Dan noted, by the cost drivers from the 24-25 review as fees were held flat for last year's cycle. So with current and delayed costs, when the current and delayed costs are considered, the estimated operating margin for all service and fee zones falls at the bottom or below the acceptable range, with estimated margins for cart and container services falling to 4.8%, which is below the ranges floor of 8%. So based upon current and delayed cost increases and to bring the operating margins into the acceptable range, the Solid Waste Commission is recommending fee increases. In this recommendation, it really should be noted that Solid Waste Commission was trying to thread a needle and took a really measured approach in this year's recommendation. The fees presented today were set to balance the impact of cost increases to residential, to rate payers and to provide the franchise owners a rate of return that is within the acceptable range. The fees proposed provide an operating margin that's at 8.12%. This is in the acceptable range, but admittedly at the lower end of that range. At the Solid Waste Commission meeting, the Clackamas County Refuge and Recycling Association submitted comment requesting fees increase to provide a 10% operating margin. The Solid Waste Commission considered this request, but did not increase fees out of concern of impact to rate paying customers. So before you today, as presented in the policy session packet, are fee increases for residential, drop box and commercial services. For the residential fees where a 35 gallon cart or a container is the most common service, the proposed fee increases will result in a $2.05 to $4.30 per month increase for most residents who do a weekly collection. The full proposed rates for services are in the policy session worksheet and in attachment one. So also presented for consideration today are increases to infectious waste collection in our Clackamas County Transfer Station. So infectious or medical waste fees were last approved in 2003. And when they were originally created, they were based on specific providers handling this really specific type of waste. So as you can imagine, since 2003, the landscape has changed quite a bit, and the people who can offer these services changed. So we needed to really restructure the whole fees. So the proposed fees have been adjusted to reflect changes in service providers, the addition of a per-stop fee to collect the waste, and consideration of the costs needed to ship waste that needs to be incinerated out of state, because we do not have in-state providers to do that work. These fees are in the policy session worksheet and in attachment three. Also, as you know, the county owns a transfer station east of the city of Sandy. It's a small transfer station. We serve about 30,000 customers a year, dropping off garbage, metal, recyclables, electronics. The last fee adjustment for our transfer station was in 2023. The cost impacts that are being seen by the collectors in labor and in disposal costs are also impacting the transfer station. So we are recommending a fee increase. A fee increase was also recommended in 24-25, so we are having impact of those delayed costs. The proposed transfer station fees are in the policy session worksheet and in attachment three. So that brings us to the last items, a lot of things to consider. In previous board sessions, the board expressed interest in the county having a program to offer rate relief for income-qualified residential customers. Staff and a consultant researched multiple programs offered by jurisdictions in Oregon and throughout the West Coast, including those offered by utilities and Clackamas County's water environment services. Based on this research, staff provided the Solid Waste Commission the option to recommend that the county start an income-qualified residential rate reduction program. program would offer reduced rates to those who are at 60% of the state median income. The reduced rates would have a two-year eligibility period and then you would need to do a renewal. An eligibility will be based on confirmation or enrollment letters showing participation in existing assistance-based programs. The Solid Waste Commission was presented with two discount options, a 50% discount in rates for those who qualify or a 75% discount for those who qualify. After consideration, the Solid Waste Commission is recommending that the county establish an income-based residential reduced fee program that offers a 75% cost reduction for qualified residents. If adopted, this is really important to note, this program will raise residential rates to accommodate the lower rates offered for those who qualify. The attachment in Table 2 details the impacts of both the 50% and 75% discounts on residential rates. So it would add, if you enact a fee increase, there would also be an additional fee increase to account for a low-income program based on the discount chosen. If a 75% reduced fee program is enacted, this would add an additional $1.30 to $1.45 per month to each residential fee. If a 50% discount program is chosen, it would add an additional about a dollar a month to accommodate reduced rates. So that kind of brings you to the options before you today. We have broken them up into first considering the income-based, relief-based program, and then to the options for your fee increases. Would the board prefer that we go one at a time or do one at a time?

Yeah, I think so.

Yeah, it's a lot. So the first option before you today is the decision to implement an income-qualified residential fee reduction program. And these options are presented in your worksheet. It's on the last page, seven or eight, depending on your cover sheet. Option one is to improve the recommendation from the Solid Waste Commission, which is a rate relief program that offers a 75% cost reduction. Option two is an income qualified residential program that offers a 50% cost reduction to qualified participants. And option three is to take no action at this time. The Solid Waste Commission is respectfully recommending option one, that you approve an income qualified residential reduced rate program offering a 50% reduction to participants.

Ready for questions? Yep, go for it. All right. I have Commissioner Helm. Go ahead.

Thank you, Cheryl. I really don't have a question. I just wanted to say that I'm really happy to see that this is being implemented based on how we vote today. It was a program I brought forward, and I will apologize to those in the audience. This was my, what, my second week last year here. I was the queen of no, right, because it's always safer to say no than yes when you don't know exactly all the things you're voting on. I fully support the reduced residential or residential reduced fee program for this, this is great.

Great. Commissioner Salas.

Yeah, I just want to echo that, I appreciate that everyone listened apparently and I appreciate the program here and think they understand that what we're trying to do is not being punitive here but we're our goal is to try to help those that are struggling the most so this program as laid out here helps that I would love to have some monitoring year by year to know what the participation level is in the in the fee reduction program that would be an ask if we do indeed go forward with it But I just wanted to say thank you for hearing us as I shared with some of the people here in the room When people don't have a choice they burn and that's even this even this Sunday someone was burning in my neighborhood this Sunday, so I Tell you I sure wasn't healthy for me to be outside because it was pretty intense But that being said I'm just appreciative again of the program I

Any other comments I Think maybe we might be a motion on the proposed income Qualified program first and then we can talk about next to us.

Okay, so moved I moved to approve the recommendation provided by the solid waste Commission to adopt an income qualified Residential reduced fee program providing a 75% discount of participates participants effective July 1st 2026

Okay. So you chose the 75% versus the 50%?

That was their recommendation, yeah.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Right. Is there a discussion? West?

What is the... income of somebody that would qualify at 50 versus 70? What does that number actually look like for an average household if they hit that range?

I used to know that off the top of my head. Does Rick want to?

I say I might need to bring up Rick Winterhalter because they did all the research on this. I don't know off the top of my head. I think we're good.

Give us a second. Okay. I'm not necessarily... have a particular feeling about one or the other and there's not I mean it's pennies less cost difference really so I'm leaning towards the 75% just when you look at the cost difference that to me that's I just I just went with the recommendation by the Solid Waste Commission yeah I like to kind of know maybe like what that household an idea with that household hit is you know We're all in this together, so we want to be helpful, but we want to do hands up and not become overly reliant on others to subsidize your expenses and usage of the service. So where's that balance, right? And so kind of have an idea like what that household looks like. It helps inform the decision, I think. So I appreciate you guys looking that up.

Just so I can give you a range right now. So if you think about the fact that the 60%, the AMI number differs by number of people within the family. Right. And so it depends if it's one, they have one through eight. These are 2024 numbers. 60% for one person looks to be about $50,000 annually. Up to four is like $70,000, $71,000 annually, give or take. That just gives you a rough scope of what those dollars are.

Okay. Yeah, I'm willing to support the motion as it's been presented.

All right.

I think we'll call for a poll then. Commissioner Schrader.

Aye.

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

Aye.

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

All right. Moving on. Next, there's a motion on the fees. And so...

I would note for you that we did break the fees out into each individual fee that we presented. So option one is to maintain fees at the current level until next year's review. If that option is chosen, fees would remain flat, but the estimated margins per container and cart service is going to about 4.8%, which is below that 8 to 12 acceptable range. Option two is the collection fees presented by this recommended by the solid waste commission option three is the infectious waste fees Recommended by the solid waste commission option four is the transfer station fees? Recommend is solid waste commission and then option five is whatever you can make an alternate here today The solid waste commission is respectful of recommending options two three and four approval of the collection infectious waste and transfer station fee recommendations and

All right. I kind of misspoke. We don't have a motion. It was just the next thing at hand. It has the fees. So is there a motion on the table for...

I move to approve the collection, infectious waste, and transfer station fee recommendations provided by the Solid Waste Commission effective July 1st, 2026. Second.

All right. So we have Commissioner Hellman's move to approve the collection infectious waste and transfer station fee recommendation provided by Solid Waste Commission, effective July 1st, 2026. And Commissioner West is second to that. Any further discussion?

Yeah, go ahead. I just want us I see the solid waste people and in the room today And I just I know we had some pretty candid conversations It was last year regarding the fee increases and one on the concerns of the board at that time And I want to just say thank you for the substantive conversations that we had privately and in public I think you really heard kind of the heart and the intent of many of us that represent the public and And it sounds like you guys try to strike that balance as you move forward. I totally see it. And we didn't get there last time. But I appreciate the collaborative effort in which you approached us here on the commission and the continued conversation and education that we got. And so I'm happy to support your guys' recommendations moving forward. But I do appreciate that collaboration. I want to make sure that's called out. Thank you.

Commissioner Salvas.

Yeah, I always recognize sometimes when people either watch these meetings live or watch them afterwards or watch the recordings, what we're doing or why we're doing it. I just think this bears a little bit of explanation. So I do want to just ask, is there anyone in the audience here from Metro? Raise your hand if you are. Don't worry, we'll be nice. So I did that because I want people to know that a lot of these are simply pass-through. The people that actually provide the services are kind of stuck in the middle between the fees that are imposed by Metro as they go up and we don't have a voice in that really. We don't have a vote in that. I guess we have a voice technically.

We have a voice but it's usually not quite listened to.

And also with the obvious issue of rising cost across the board inflation. So we did not raise the rates last year. We were within the range. And again, I want to thank everyone for implementing. low-income program for that so that folks that's why we're here and I would suppose it'd be a lot different if those fees were not imposed by Metro the numbers would look starkly different here if there were not those fee increases passed on to us to implement here today, so That's all I have chair. I yield back

Commissioner Helm.

Yes, and I just would like to thank everyone, too, for the many conversations we had last year and for schooling me. Coming from the business world, there was things I did not understand about what profit margin is in this business. It's a little complicated because of the pass-throughs and everything. appreciate your patience and your willingness to talk to me and explain it to me and we are we are in tough times right now and affordability is is is everyone's main concern so a lot of these as Commissioner Sava says are passed through and we don't have control over it and we do push back where we can but it doesn't always work so

Right. Just before we go to a poll, I'll just say, echo a little bit of what my colleague said. I really appreciate just kind of getting educated on the issue at hand and kind of the costs that impact you and the service delivery. So that was very helpful and really appreciate that. So I think we're in a position to call a poll, sir.

Commissioner Savas. Aye. Commissioner Helm.

Aye.

Commissioner Savas. Sorry. Commissioner Schrader. Aye.

Aye.

Commissioner West. Aye. Mr. Chair. Aye. Motion passes 5-0, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Gary, what's next?

Next policy session is short-term rental registration program task force report. Tony Maronick, policy advisor in the Board of County Commissioner's Office, will present. So many pins. So many dollars.

That was painless.

Go ahead, Tony. Good afternoon, Chair Roberts, Commissioners. I am following up on board direction at an April 21st, April 21st, 2026 policy session for staff to go back and do some work on the short-term rental registration program. After that meeting occurred, the administrator assembled a task force. That task force I was part of included representation from finance, transportation, and development, county administration, tourism, county council, and members of the Board of County Commissioners to explore options for how to bring this program forward and make some changes based on the outcomes of the pilot project over the last two years. beginning with the end in mind staff have some recommended changes to the county ordinance chapter 8.10 that governs short-term rental registration i won't read through all of the red lines on 10 pages i'll focus on a couple of key things first key thing to talk about is staff are proposing that the county implement a land use compatibility statement as part of the approval process for short-term rental registrations. Part of that is that there are approximately 1,100 STRs in Clackamas County. Some of those STRs are clearly operating in zoning districts that do not allow STRs. There is an enforcement problem. I'll come back to that in a moment. Part of that process is identifying those STRs, reaching out to those STRs, and this process will help us work with those STR operators to clarify where they are and are not allowed to operate. That land use compatibility statement process, we would need to come up with one. And I say that because there are already 1,100 or so STRs operating in Clackamas County. and the administrative overhead of 1,100 people wandering over to the development services building and demanding a LUX sometime in the next handful of weeks, I think that DTD staff would have some challenges making that work. And so we would work on a queuing system for existing operators to batch them through our process and get them either a LUX statement that says you're allowed to do it or inform them that they are not allowed to do it. New STRs, however, if you come to us after, say, July 1st, 2026, congratulations. Before you can do anything, you need to go over and get a LUX. You're brand new to this space. There's a process to go through. Once that LUX is approved, they would then come and apply to the short-term relative registration program and get their approval to proceed. Provisional operators would still be responsible for remitting county, state, local transient lodging taxes and operating under a provisional approval. But this gives us a way to keep track of them as we work through the process. Second recommendation second part of this recommendation is to establish a renewal process Currently they come and sign up once and then it's incumbent upon the operator to remember. Oh, I had an STR permit I need to go in and tell them I'm not doing that anymore. I sold the property or otherwise keep us updated this annual or biennial process would allow us to keep that information up to date by telling them hey if You need to renew your permit by December 31st, 2028, for example. We would again need to work through precisely how we would structure that and batch people so that not everyone is renewing at exactly the same time to manage staff demand. They would not need to get a lux for the renewal. It's just that initial application. And then the last piece of the code changes that I'll talk about is establishing a fine schedule for violations of Chapter 8.10. There is in Chapter 8.10 already language that allows the board to establish a fine schedule. We just have not established one yet. And there are some items in Chapter 8.10 already. that are solely violations of Chapter 8.10 and therefore a fine schedule would need to be created to give code enforcement the ability to levy those fines for violations. One prime example of those violations, failure to register your STR. We wouldn't necessarily start out with a fine letter. We're gonna start out with an alleged letter. Hey, it looks like you might be operating an STR, but this would give us a tool in the toolbox as we bring operators into compliance with the county code. That is the major changes to the county code changes. Any questions on that before I come back to the other topics? Go ahead, Commissioner.

So what happens if we do this LUX program? What happens to those that are not in compatible areas?

We will inform them that they are not in compatible areas and they will need to cease operation. And if they don't cease operation, they'll end up in the code enforcement channel where they're using their property in a way that's not allowed under state statute.

Okay, that's question one. Okay, question two. One of the things that was brought up, was it during the town hall, is that there should be inspections done on the homes prior to them being allowed to be STRs. And I don't know, is there any relation to the Lux thing? Is that one is land use, one is just making sure that everything is A-okay at a house before we allow it to be an STR?

So the LUX process would not require an inspection of the property. It's primarily our team looking at what's your zoning district? How was the house legally established? Are all your permits up to date? Do you have any open code enforcement cases already? The inspection of properties prior to approval of an STR, it's a concept that was discussed by the work group. Part of the challenge is, and I'll come back to the staffing side, There are 1,100 existing STRs and there is a small pool of complaints at the moment. One of the things staff are looking at is coming back to the board at some future date, assuming we choose to move forward with these changes to explore, do we need to go down the inspection pathway? Is having a team in place handling complaints sufficient and educating operators on their obligations sufficient to bring about compliance?

Okay, I'm just, and it was brought up that this is a commercial business, right? This is a business that is, and any kind of commercial business before they open usually has to have some sort of inspection and a check off by the county that it's okay to operate. So I'm just saying for safety purposes, I think it's something that should be looked at. More?

All right, Commissioner Salvas.

Yeah, it might be obvious, but I think there's some other opportunities in the future You know I know we discussed it that were to be taken a step here and then in the future as Tony alluded to I think there's other things that we can start looking at to make sure but I think first of all to expedite something started off with something bite-sized if you will is a good start and I want to make sure that this system works. I want to monitor it. I just gave the benefit of the doubt last time that, you know, things were falling into place. And, you know, I learned it didn't turn out as well as we thought. So I intend on taking a closer look at make sure these things are working. And when the time's right, we can start looking at other things like a cap, right, and things like that. So But we will need more time to consider that, but I just want to just put that out there that this is maybe a step of many or a step of one or two.

No, I agree, and you guys have done a great job with this, and I think the Hoodland CPO people are mostly very happy.

Great. Thank you. Commissioner West.

So I love Oregon's land use laws, as everybody knows. I'm being sarcastic. Here's my concern, and please, if you can alleviate it, fantastic, because I'm probably not the only person that has this concern. So you have somebody that's operating an STR. They're not even necessarily a bad actor. They have no idea that they're not in compliance with land use compatibility statements from the state. Would any normal person generally understand even what that is? And all of a sudden, we, the government here, to help everybody, says to their small little business or their retirement income that they rely on, sorry, you're out of luck here and you're outside of Oregon's restrictive land use limit. Is that potentially by cranking up the enforcement there? Well, how many of these 1,100 do we think are outside of, are operating unknowingly? Possibly most of them. Most people are good actors. I believe the good intention for most, it only takes a couple, only takes a couple. But I'm concerned about coming in, waving the regulatory stick at some of these individuals in a way that is punitive to them also, that we would not want to have intended. So I don't know if somebody could speak to that concern.

I will endeavor to address some of that concern, Commissioner. I will note that the land use laws, as you note, already prohibit STRs in certain zoning districts, primarily the resource zones, timber, ag forest, and exclusive farm use, and then also urban and rural reserves. That has been the case for a while, and that is where education is gonna come into play of, rather than coming in and waving the stick of, oh, you can't do this anymore, is a messaging piece of actually you've never been allowed to do this, we just haven't noticed. And that's partly on staff to inform folks. And where it is allowed, I think we're gonna try and get to yes. If there is an opportunity to make it possible, I believe the staff will do their best to get to yes, but there are certain resource zones where it is simply prohibited outright. To that end, it would be an education piece. I will note that of the approximately 1,100 STRs in Clackamas County, only about 200 or 250 of them are registered, which tells me that 75 to 80% of the STRs out there have no clue that these rules exist. Oh, my. And so there's going to be some education before we start waving around fines, fees, penalties, sending people to the code enforcement officer and going down those pathways. However, I do note from a livability perspective, there are folks running STRs in resource zones that are hosting event centers effectively. They're renting out to, they're also violating our prohibition on subletting to income generating activities. that impact neighborhood livability issues that need to be addressed as well. But I think there is a balance to be struck and that is part of this first baby step is we don't necessarily know where the problems are because we only know about the folks that knew the rules existed and signed up. We know about about 750 other properties but we don't know anything other than They're listed on Airbnb or another property, and we don't know what zoning they're in. We don't know if they know the rules exist to be able to follow them.

Thank you, Tony, for that. I guess you already spoke to the potential administrative bottleneck. And by the way, I agree with what you said. And those are bad actors. We've had issues with those types of properties, clearly. The administrative bottleneck, so we're shifting from like you're kind of self-certifying to now full formal land use statements that we know potentially could increase that workload for our planning and zoning staff. And that could be problematic in its own right. But do we start to create any legal issues when those that have self-reported, they didn't know that they were even in a land use violation, they've been good actors, they've been paying for it this whole time, and then could we be liable for... retroactive funds or for taking income from them when they were good actors the whole time and then all of a sudden we come in and say oh wait a second we've been taking your money and working with you but now you're in violation and we found out you're in violation of land use so we're like looking for the problem nobody knew it was really there they were operating good faith and then we go after these good people that happens all the time in government so that's kind of my concern do we start to kind of have a little bit of legal risk depending on who we're dealing with that have been good actors that find out that they

Aren't compatible with state land use Well as I'm not a lawyer I will Lean on County Council to assist with that issue.

So Commissioner West answer your question. I will rely upon the no Voice to me silently from mr. Muntz who's been part of this test.

Okay Okay, good just a question and Yeah, okay, I'll leave it at that. I'm good, I'm good.

Yeah, my only comment is, excuse me, is that if anybody's out there wanting to start their own short-term rental, if you go to YouTube or the internet, exactly the first thing they tell you to do before anything else, check city and county guidelines. Because if you purchase the place or you start setting it up before you have the authority, you could very well end up not having it or an investment. So I guess that's where, as soon as possible, having our stuff posted and making sure that people are aware, hey, here's the new guidelines and probably a little media response through PGA or something to help kind of, hey, this is where we're at. With that, I think we're at a point to entertain a motion.

Chair, I apologize, I'd like to talk through the other piece of this puzzle, how we're going to accomplish this, if that's all right with you. Sure, yeah. In the past, we have not, we've had a voluntary compliance system. You folks went to Clackamas.us slash STR, filled out the form, we would follow up on that process, but there has not been that proactive outreach piece. Part of the work of the task force was to talk through how would we engage in that proactive outreach, that education, that compliance piece. We are proposing a minimum of two full-time staff positions, one code enforcement specialist and one management analyst. And in order to fund those positions and bring this group into operation, we are also proposing a fee increase from the current fee of .85% of STR revenue to 1.5% of STR revenue. We expect, we educated guess there's about $44 million a year in STR revenue occurring in unincorporated Clackamas County. We think that that 1.5% fee would fund the two FTE positions and the appropriate attendant costs for that program.

Is it, quick question.

Yeah, go ahead.

Is that passed on to the renter or is that paid by the, can it be passed on to the renter? So we have somebody coming from out of town, they're paying an additional 1.5% and they're not necessarily a Clackamas County resident. Often they're not. They may be like if you're, if you're Wilsonville, go to the mountain, well then I am. But many of them aren't, right? So does it go to the rate payer or does it go to the owner of the property generally or is that decided by the owner? Who's hit it?

There's renting. Yeah. Yeah.

It's a pass-through. It's a pass-through.

If they want to.

Okay. You can eat it. So not all booking companies collect taxes and fees. So that comes up to the owner to still have to, like, make sure that's paid through. Like, I know certain major entities, they won't collect those for you. Some entities pay it for you, pay it for the STR owner, right?

So... At the end of the day... To Commissioner Helms' point, that cost is almost certainly passed on to the end renter. Administratively, however, I note that Airbnb, other major platforms, do not collect certain fees on behalf of operators. And so it may not appear as a line item in your overnight charge where you see your bill of, oh, the room's going to cost me $600 a night. But in the end, most operators are going to pass this fee on to their person, their person.

Commissioner Salvas. Yeah, I was going to use the phrase, it depends.

Yeah, it depends. It depends, yeah.

Exactly. So I hope, frankly, that a sophisticated platform like VRBO or yeah that they actually incorporate all those fees if it's that's possible and collect that and again you're you know the answer is correct I mean ultimately the the renter or the STR purchaser or what the the customer is going to be paying that fee ultimately okay all right anything else to add not at this time chair

All right. I think we're to the point then for a motion if somebody wants to make one.

I move we direct staff to implement the proposed staffing model and advance the proposed changes to Chapter 8.10, short-term rentals, as an amendment to the county code. Second. Second.

All right. Commissioner Shearer has moved to direct staff to implement the proposed staffing model and advance the proposed changes to Chapter 8.10, short-term rental as amendment to the county code. Commissioner Helm is seconded to that. Any further discussion?

I just have a question. Go ahead. What's the time period between this being instituted and like next baby step? Because there's other things that have to get addressed that were brought up. What is that? Just a ballpark time period. Are you gonna give it six months? Are you gonna give it a year? Are you gonna give it, I don't know, until the first complaint comes in?

Well, the first complaint came in about two days after we adopted the ordinance. I would expect probably six to 12 months before we have a handle on the program and have the knowledge to be able to come back and say, hey, these are the additional tweaks to be made.

Okay, and one of the other major complaints I heard was how difficult the program was for people to

Do every month and did we is that even part of this not really I'm afraid you're gonna say no We certainly could explore the present administration of that program is a clerical decision We could look at a monthly or a quarterly process

Okay, oh, oh, instead of a monthly, okay, okay. I just heard it's just so cumbersome. Whatever program it is, it's just really hard to do, and people spend a couple hours to learn they made $2 or something.

I do note, however, that TLT, transient lodging tax payments, are due on a fairly regular basis, and we try to align with that schedule.

Oh, that would make sense. Maybe we could do it as part of their program.

Commissioner Salas. Yeah, I just want to say it's a little bit of learn-as-you-go kind of thing for us and and others as well. I do want to say I'm sure that legal staff and Mr. Munns will probably be bringing those revisions to us shortly to adopt 8.1. We can't do it without adoption so that'll be before us in probably a month or so or less.

Certainly less. Yeah.

That's all I have. All right. I just wanted to add that really thinking, Mr. Mons, Tony, you policy advisors, a lot of people work pretty hard on this. And the community up there really was just looking for, we want some action. Action. And anyway, I know you worked really hard on that, Tony, along with a number of other people. So, Mr. Mons, thank you, too. So, with that, I'll ask the clerk to call the poll for us.

Commissioner West. Aye. Commissioner Schroeder.

Aye.

Commissioner Helm.

Aye.

Commissioner Savas. Aye. Mr. Chair. Aye. Motion passes five to zero, Mr.

Chair. All right, everyone. I will now recess as Board of County Commissioners and convene as North Bacchus Parks and Recreation District Board of Directors. And Gary, what do you have for us?

You can take a short recess, Chair, because you're 40 minutes ahead of schedule and we need to get staff in the room.

All right. I like that.

Wow. Sure. Okay.

short recess everyone yep Are we going all right? We'll go ahead and reconvene and just a reminder. We're Convening as the Board of Commissioners or as the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District Board of Directors Gary thank you.

This is a policy session about the financial health of the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District and financial outcomes of the proposed Milwaukee intergovernmental agreements with the district. Presenting today is Kia Selle, the director of the district, and Jeff Munns, council for the district. Go ahead, please.

Thank you, Gary. Good afternoon, Chair Roberts and directors. My name is Kia Selle. I'm the NCPRD district director. I'm here with Jeff Munns, senior assistant county council. And we're here today to provide a briefing on the financial health of NCPRD and the anticipated financial outcomes of the proposed intergovernmental agreements with the city of Milwaukee. There are two agreements. One is an existing agreement. It's the cooperative agreement. And we are looking at an amendment to that cooperative agreement. And the second is a new agreement. It's an intergovernmental agreement for construction funding of the Milwaukee Bay Park phase three. IGA negotiations began in January 2025 at the request of Mayor Beatty to negotiate an agreement for the construction of Milwaukee Bay Park phase three. It's a goal of Milwaukee City Council to complete construction of that park. The NCPRD board agreed at that time to negotiations if those negotiations included updating the existing cooperative agreement that was negotiated originally in 2008. That agreement governs a range of things, but largely the operations and maintenance by NCPRD of Milwaukee assets. I should say park and recreation assets. Negotiations have been ongoing since that time, but the Milwaukee City Council actually approved the agreements in April, but the NCPRD terms had not been finalized. Staff have continued negotiations on the remaining terms, which is why the final agreements are not attached to your policy work session packet. There have been two major considerations throughout these negotiations. One is district finances and the second is district wide equity. And that is equity between the city of Milwaukee which is 19% of the land area of the district and 20% of the population and the unincorporated area of the district, which is the balance, so 81% of the land area and 80% of the district population. In terms of the district finances, over half of the district general fund revenue is generated by a fixed permanent tax rate of 54 cents per thousand of assessed value. This tax rate has never increased since the district was formed in 1990. nor has the district had a bond passed or a levy passed. NCPRD has the lowest tax rate of the five park and rec districts in the state of Oregon. This 1990 tax rate has not kept pace with inflation as tax revenue typically grows at 3%. And as all of us know, our operational costs have significantly increased due to inflation. So a great example that I often cite is that over the past five years, our electricity costs have increased by an average of 9% each year. This structural funding issue will require ongoing budget reductions if we are to balance annual general fund revenues with general fund expenditures according to our five-year financial forecast. And I've included that financial forecast as attachment A in your packet. And there's also a bar graph which really shows the same story, which is attachment B. Between this fiscal year this current fiscal year and next fiscal year NC PRD will have reduced the budget by 1.7 million Although these budget reductions for next fiscal year will be less impactful to the community they will contribute to a further reduction in service levels and even with these budget reductions the district is facing a fiscal cliff and fiscal year 20 31 32 when there will no longer be adequate contingency and reserves within our general fund and this will require significant budget cuts and service reductions Which we haven't seen the likes of yet that are likely to result in community center closures closure of park amenities and minimizing if not eliminating park maintenance and So to solve this issue, NCPRD staff are working with the Trust for Public Land to advance a five-year local option levy that would generate more operational revenue. Support of a levy from the City of Milwaukee and other community leaders will be imperative to the passage of that levy, particularly during a time when the high cost of living is really a concern for most of our district residents. NCPRD's District Advisory Committee will host a community discussion next week. We'll share results of the polling work that is funded by the Trust for Public Land and gather community feedback on next steps. I will bring that community feedback back to you on June 24th at your quarterly board meeting at the Concord Community Center. As I mentioned, the second major factor in negotiations is district-wide equity. Of the 106,000 district residents, 20% of the residents, as I mentioned earlier, reside within the city of Milwaukee, and 80% of the residents reside within the unincorporated area of Clackamas County. Since the inception of the district, 17% of the resources generated through taxes have been paid by Milwaukee residents, and the balance, well, the math is 8% was paid by former Happy Valley district residents, but the balance is 75% is paid by the unincorporated area district residents. Of the 38 developed parks, natural areas, trails, and greenways that NCPRD maintains, 16 are located within the City of Milwaukee and 19 are located within the unincorporated area. And those within the unincorporated area are actually owned by NCPRD, but those within City of Milwaukee are owned by the City of Milwaukee. of the total land area that ncprd operates and maintains 43 percent is located within the city of milwaukee the recently approved 2025 system plan further underscores the lower lower level of service within the unincorporated area. with several neighborhoods in the unincorporated area called out as being park deficient. For this reason, the system plan five-year capital project list includes the construction of three new parks in the unincorporated area. So given this framing and two major considerations, district finances and district-wide equity, I'll detail a few of the key terms that are highlighted on attachment C in your packet. In the amended cooperative agreement, this is amendment number two, there are two key deal terms with financial impacts to NCPRD that I'll detail. First, NCPRD has agreed to be responsible for capital improvements, repair and replacement at parks, trails, natural areas, and greenways within the city of Milwaukee. The timing of these new improvements will be consistent with the approved 2025 system plan capital list with one exception. North Clackamas Park will now be a five to ten year priority and Milwaukee Bay Park phase three will now be a zero to five year priority. So we're shifting park priorities because of this desire of the Milwaukee City Council to accelerate construction in Milwaukee Bay Park phase three. We're shifting these priorities within the City of Milwaukee but I want to be clear that we're not changing the timing or location of any of the proposed investments in the unincorporated area. Second NC PRD will will waive if the board approves my authority as director would waive special use permit indirect fees such as administration administrative fee Processing fee. These are cost recovery fees, but we would waive those for government and their partners thinking like neighborhood park associate neighborhood associations, other types of nonprofits that host free events that are open to the public. So they would look like a park event in a park or natural area. This waiver would be available district-wide with an estimated financial impact of up to $3,000 annually to NCPRD. in terms of financial impacts to milwaukee if milwaukee leaves the district they must pay the depreciated value of ncprd investments in capital improvements and capital repair and replacement. Also milwaukee has agreed to take responsibility for all capital repair and replacement at the milwaukee community center such as roof replacement or hvac NCPRD would continue to operate and maintain the facility. At this point, we have not conducted a building condition assessment. However, our understanding, NCPRD's understanding of the building condition is that there's an estimated million dollars worth of capital repair and replacement over the next 10 years. The next deal term that we are currently working with Milwaukee on, but I'm going to detail this anyway, is the deal term to remove fees from utilities that fund other city services like a street maintenance fee or a public safety fee. These fees were added to utility invoices beginning in July of 2025 without any notice. we paid them until we accrued $24,000 in additional costs. So we've stopped paying them and the concern there is that this was just for North Clackamas Park and Milwaukee Community Center. The intent is for these fees to be spread across utilities for all of the parks that NCPRD operates and maintains within the city of Milwaukee. So doing the math there would be a devastating impact on the NCPRD budget if we continue to pay these. So NCPRD staff in discussions with Milwaukee staff are asking for a $24,000 credit on utilities because we've already paid some of those fees in 2025 and we've asked that fees not be added to any additional utility invoices going forward. I want to note that this is a major deal term for us because it has clear financial impact. It's not a minor issue. So I'm really hoping that we can come to terms on this particular issue. In my research of other park and rec districts, I have found that some park and rec organizations actually pay a government rate that is a reduced rate for their utility costs because they're providing a government, a public service. And from my research, it is not typical for a government organization to pay fees on top of utilities because you're effectively collecting taxes for one purpose and then those tax revenues are being invested for another purpose that's unrelated. In the Milwaukee Bay Park Phase 3 construction funding IGA, there's also financial give-and-take between NCPRD and the City of Milwaukee. NCPRD would provide 4.9 million of the funding needed for construction of Milwaukee Bay Park phase 3 which Right now with current estimates. It could be as high as 12 million if that park was constructed next year Milwaukee would be responsible for financing the balance of this capital project and The $4.9 million, these are not general fund dollars. These are actually dollars that can only be used to fund new park amenities or new parks. This allocation would not take resources away from the unincorporated area park improvements called for in the 2025 system plan zero to five-year capital project list. And I'll detail kind of there are three buckets that make up that 4.9. One bucket is $902,000 of Metro local share funds. So NCPRD received a little over $4 million from Metro through their local share grant program. And the $902,000 is 20%, which is equivalent to Milwaukee's population within the district. The second bucket is $658,000. It is a grant. that was allocated by Metro to Milwaukee Bay Park phase three. It can't be used for any other projects. And then the last bucket is up to 3.3 million of system development charge funds from the Milwaukee portion of zone one. These funds were collected from new development or major redevelopment within the city of Milwaukee. And I want to add here that the forecast for next fiscal year is that we will have 3.9 million in that fund by the end of next fiscal year. So there would be some SDC resources remaining for future district-wide investments. Lastly, Milwaukee would be responsible for funding ongoing operations and maintenance and programming of the park within 24 months of executing the agreement. Annual operations and maintenance of the current improvements at Milwaukee Bay Park are $65,000, so those two years would be $130,000. Having said that, without this new agreement, NCPRD would continue to operate and maintain the park at an annual cost of $65,000. That's in 2026 dollars. So the transfer of park operations to Milwaukee would actually decrease our annual operations and maintenance liability. That concludes my remarks. I want to thank the board. I want to thank Gary, Jeff, and Milwaukee staff for a significant investment of time in the negotiations of these agreements. So thank you very much. We're happy to answer your questions.

All right. Commissioner Salvas.

I don't think I have any questions, but I just want to make some comments, so if you'll indulge me. Thank you, Kia. Thank you, Jeff, for your hard work on that. to try and start where Kia started with the beginning of the negotiations which were elected official to elected official at the time and prior to that it was staff to staff and I think late last year was our last elected to elective gary about right and uh... so staff have been working on everything that kia has pointed out here that's on the sheet there are a few uh... deal terms that the elected to electives have not yet resolved And I hope we can talk about that on June 24th. So I do know that they're still underway. You're still working on these things. We were all caught by surprise by the 24, I think it was 30,000 we estimated, but the 24,000 sudden cost or fees passed on to us, which... None of us knew about it. You didn't even know about it until you actually opened up the envelope, or your staff did, to see, my gosh, what's this about? So I am kind of concerned about what protections there are for, frankly, adding to the subsidy. What we haven't really talked about is the... the subsidy that the unincorporated areas are basically other taxes are covering for the cost of operating, providing services in Milwaukee. So we haven't resolved that and I was always hoping that that was something we work on. as well as making sure that there's support for something like a levy to help the health of the district and there have been some statements made both in negotiation and in public that have been a little bit concerning actually quite a bit concerning so I again I think that's one of the deal points maybe that we that elected to electives can can work out in short time I think we addressed some people here in the room a few weeks ago that showed up from Milwaukee somehow because the city of Milwaukee released that statement about they signed the IGA, and yet we haven't even closed a deal yet. We're still working on it. So it was still a work in progress, and yet it was characterized as that we're ready to sign. And so I appreciate you pointing out that... the balance of, if this is the financial makeup of the contribution towards Milwaukee Bay Park phase three, that there's still a large funding gap that Milwaukee's responsible for. And I think, you know, just seeing some of the messaging here in the last few days, my concern is that I think people are under the assumption that we sign these deals and they can start construction, yet they don't have the balance, that funding gap. And they don't even know exactly what that funding gap is, but the funding gap has been there for a long time and is significant. So how they go about acquiring those funds to make up the funding gap is, I guess, that's their place. But I'm just, I think that the premise why we're here today is to, from my standpoint, is to highlight the fiscal Aspects of the district the health of the district and it's incumbent upon us as elected officials two things number one Hold this meeting within the district on the 24th, which we are I wish we were doing that today Number one hold at a time where people can attend that's reasonable because most people work to make a living so I want to make sure we're you know, we're doing a reasonable time and it sounds like we're going to do that and and basically the board of directors work in the best interest of the district. And Milwaukee's part of that, so I'm not disputing that, but it is in the best interest, and I think the financial health is paramount. It's probably the most important thing right now, and I certainly don't want to compromise the health of the district whatsoever. I have a number of things here, but we can talk about that we can talk about, you know, on the 24th that we've struggled with. But, you know, I have already heard, because people have got this, we posted this, so the issues with local share and maybe we can, what's the portion of local share that the City of Milwaukee already receives specifically for the City of Milwaukee for parks? Do you recall? Was it $900,000 as well?

I thought it was 1.2. Thank you for that question, Director Chavez. My understanding is that City of Milwaukee had received approximately $1.2 million from Metro for their local share portion. OK.

It was pointed out to me who someone who called me said that they thought it was, let's just say it was like double dipping. I think there was a term that someone used on the phone. But I guess I want to make sure we talk about that. And you use the word equity. The boards use the word parity. Try to get parity within the district. And I hope to have some more information on that. It's just some rough math. just so people can understand. You mentioned 16 parks in the city of Milwaukee and 19 unincorporated. That's a total of 35. And parity would look more like 80 parks and divide it up in those five zones. And so we're 45 short of parity, 45 parks short of parity. And I would love to know, roughly, I know that's ballpark, I know it's pie in the sky, but roughly what it would take in dollars. I know that's a wild guess, but I'm not asking you today, but I will be asking you on the 24th. What approximate amount of money, capital money, would it be required to build those 45 parks in Zone 1, 2, 3, and 4, who are woefully under... not underrepresented, I guess the word is, ill-equipped, don't have the same access per capita that the 16 parks in Milwaukee represents. And that's not Milwaukee's fault. I think that's our responsibility. So again, I thank you for all the work. And I also want to thank my colleagues. I want to say that this group of county commissioners slash board of directors is the most informed at this moment about the situation here than ever in the last 15 years that I've been here, 16 years. So I want to again thank my colleagues again for having the patience to understand the dynamics. And on the 24th, we'll have even more. And I hope to hear from You know the public as well as their thoughts But I thought this is overdue to kind of get this in front of the of the public and hopefully we can all work in good faith and Resolve these deal terms All right

Well, thank you for your presentation, Kia. I learn something new every time, but I will say that as informed as you think we are, we're still probably not all up to speed because it's such a complicated thing. And if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong, that this type of thing where a city is within a district is unusual in Oregon. Usually cities have their own parks districts, and then there's unincorporated parks districts, and this is unusual that this one is part of the city, right?

Is that a true statement? Well, thank you for that question, Director Helm. So it is an unusual setup. THPRD, Tualatin Hills Parks and Rec, they actually overlap with the city of Beaverton. So there are some situations where there is some overlap, but they have agreements for those areas of overlap. But an entire city within a district, to my knowledge, that doesn't exist within the state of Oregon. But I'll... Bend, I think. But Bend, so Bend, it's a little bit different. So Bend Park and Rec does exist within the city of Bend, but they, Bend Park and Rec actually took over ownership of all of the park assets when they formed that district. That's my understanding. So I will confirm all of that when we talk on June 24th, but that's my understanding. Jeff, do you have anything to add to that?

No, I think that just also kind of highlights part of why this is difficult, because the city of Milwaukee owns those assets, and then by this agreement is how we manage those assets and operate them, provide those services to the public. But they do retain ownership of their parks, and they are, like we said, 20% of the population and approximately 20% of the revenue, but they have 43% of the parks that we operate. And so that inherently means that we're spending... A little bit more in that because they have parks and some of the big parks like North Clackamas Park and Milwaukee Center are right on the boundary of their city and are used heavily by an incorporated portion of the district. So, you know, we work together on this and have successfully for years, but we need to refine these agreements because this intergovernmental agreement goes back to 2008. And our office certainly strives to review these agreements and get them updated at a much faster rate than that. So hopefully we can do so going forward with the city as well.

Well, and that's kind of my point, too, is that it's been hard to kind of separate these things and where, you know, the numbers fall and to make sure that it's fair for the entire district, which has kind of been my biggest heartburn is I'm a rural gal and I'm always watching out for unincorporated Clackamas County and One of the important things we hear from constituents is they want parks close to home, right? It's it's something they want to have near where they live walkable if possible So I I'm just saying I want to protect those areas that are not They're not walkable right now for people So I this has been a real difficult thing learning all of this over the last year and how complicated it is and trying to make sure we're doing it right and getting all the numbers correct and And then in the end, having all the correct information to make the right decision. So I think we're on the right path. And you guys have made great strides. And I can't tell you how much I appreciate your work and the position we've put you in from our conversations and stuff. But I think we're getting there. And I'm happy to see it. The only thing I'm upset about is that the NCPRD meetings always happen the same night as my impact meetings. So I wish that I could attend. the NCPRD board board meetings because I think it'd be really important for all of us to be there and show our You know Representations so back to your chair Yeah, no, I just want a couple comments first of all just

Shout out to Kia and Mr. Munns, actually Mr. Williams, Gary, and many others that have worked so hard and so diligently on this for so long. And you've also brought me up to speed on many of the issues, concerns you have. I know, as you've talked about, the Milwaukee Community Center, which has some repairs that are much needed. And... And so what I've really noticed is really how hard that you guys have worked on the IGA. And really, I feel like we have made a lot of progress. And is it perfect? No. I don't think any contract is 100% perfect. And it sides one side or the other a little bit here and then over there. So I think it's... You know, I'm really excited about this moving forward and I know at some point you do have to address it. We have the lowest tax rate in Oregon, 54 cents. I think you always bring up a good analogy of PG's increased 9% right so it's a simple way to look at just not keeping up with costs and and so I think that's something that we're all very excited to kind of look at it kind of next steps how are we gonna make that sustainable but I didn't want to give Gary just a chance because I know Gary's also been immensely involved in this and if you had any comments

I've only been working with staff on these draft IGA since calendar year 2021, so only five years. that's it seriously yes a lot of starts and stops but we're the farthest along we've been and a lot of collaboration especially at the staff level thank you kia and jeff and the city of milwaukee city manager and assistant manager emma and joseph have been fantastic to work for we just work for the electives we try to help accomplish your goals i'm very pleased that i hope at your june 24th board meeting you'll give us direction on what you want to do with those igas move forward make some edits or throw them out the door i don't think you want to throw them out the door but We're very, very close, but it has taken a lot of effort from staff in particular, and I know you boards have talked about this for a long time. And I know Milwaukee's impatient, and you're impatient, but we're close. We're very close, and I thank you all for your work. But I am asking on behalf of staff, you give us direction on June 24th where you'd like to go, please. Thank you. Right.

Martha and then Paul.

Well, you did actually answer my question. I wanted to know what the process was. Because right now, this is just informational at this hearing. And the 24th is when we'd make a judgment call or head forward with this. So is this something that our friends in Milwaukee are happy with, that we're talking about this publicly? Are they, do we know if they're in agreement with all the stipulations here?

They've been communicating with us.

They've been communicating that they're all right with this? Okay. Well, I too, Gary, have been doing this since 2003. Yeah. And it worked pretty well for a while. And then, you know, we started to have some rubs. I remember when we built the ballpark. The folks who were on the committee then, they were incorporated in city. We were all working together. And what the brouhaha was to get that softball field built. It was amazing. We had numerous meetings with a lot of angry folks who didn't want the park, believe it or not, because it would be too noisy with kids, which I thought was kind of an interesting thing. But we prevailed. Nope, really likes kids. And it is, I think, one of the parks that we have now. I've always liked it. They can do softball. leagues, which is one of the intentions that we had. So I'm hopeful we can move forward with this and that Milwaukee is... satisfied that we're trying to work in good faith with them for the good of the city as well as for the unincorporated area. And I also think we've made great strides in the unincorporated area. I think the community center and the library and that whole complex really has been a remarkable step forward. I only wish we had that chance for the other land, for the church that we had been able to pull that went off that was in my mind a mistake it was a mistake I wish we had really been able to do that as well because I think it would have alleviated a lot of the angst that folks in the unincorporated has but I think great thank and thank you for all you do because I know you've been back and forth and back and forth and hopefully we can bring this to fruition now

Thank you. Commissioner Salas. Yeah, well, thanks, Commissioner Schrader, for mentioning that. You didn't make a mistake, and I didn't make a mistake. We were just two commissioners that were outvoted by the other three that didn't acquire a property at, I thought, a bargain. And it only took a matter of weeks and months before the price of that property doubled and then tripled. Yeah, it became... We could have really... I turn my light on only to say that in my 26 years in an elected capacity, we made a lot of deals. We had a lot of mergers. We had a lot of agreements over the years where we've done, you know, on wastewater we formed an IGA. Not on wastewater. Well, on water. Oak Lodge Waters, Happy Valley, Sunrise Water now, DeBascus Water. and even agreements with CRW, others, where we had agreements, and everyone brought something to the table and had a buy-in, essentially a buy-in. So you brought your assets forward and you put them in the pot, and from there on you operate in this IGA, Intergovernmental Agreement, as an organization, an ORS 190. And it's been successful that that's still working today. Just like the agreement between Oregon City and Westland with with their water district My point here the unusual thing here 36 years ago when this is formed is that Instead of well the county took all of its parks that were in the boundary of NCPRD the newly formed NCPRD and just put them in the pot and But Milwaukee did not. They held onto them. So there was no buy-in on Milwaukee. So that's the difference here that's been part of the challenge. And I won't relive all the angst I've had over all these years, but when we look at where the monies have gone and the investments have gone, when Happy Valley was in there, we made substantial investments in Happy Valley and we made substantial investments in Milwaukee. And up until recently, we made a substantial investment at the Concord facility, right? So I recognize that. But there are other subareas that still have very, very, very little. And I want to make sure we pay attention to all of those. But we have a long way to go. I appreciate your words, equity. Parity, you know, is my words, the board's words as far as one of our goals. And we'll touch on that on the 24th. Again, I applaud everyone's efforts here, and I also applaud everyone's patience. And we're just trying to do the best we can for the district. That's all there is to it. Thank you.

Right. I think before we move on, the only last comment I might have is just that, and I know how hard we've been working to try and do just what Paul said, this parity, right? Kind of make sure we're doing all we can. And Martha brought up, you know, Concord, and that's great. And the one thing I just would say is a lot of times, you know, Citizens don't really know where that city and county line is. They use resources on both sides. And I do see Milwaukee Bay Park as this little gem. It's kind of like in Oregon City, you know, the Blue Heron. Someday that's just going to be the spotlight of Oregon, right? And so another piece of that is the Milwaukee Bay Park. And a lot of people, they love that waterfront opportunity. And so I do agree. I think we missed one years ago where it could have been down near Jenny's Lodge, and that would have just been gorgeous. So we have to take care and make sure we're utilizing that rare property that comes up. And I just... Know you've been working really hard to try and make sure that it's fair across the board and I appreciate that so I think with that This is only information for us at this time. There's no motions, and I think you heard we're coming back on the 24th North Clackamas Board of Directors meeting on the 24th. So with that being said, unless there's any other comments, I'll adjourn. It's North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners and turn to Gary. Do you have anything else for the day? You have concluded your business for today. All right.

All right.

Following a big budget meeting, so we sure appreciate calling it a day. Thank you both very much.

Wow, we're done.