Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome to Administrator Issues and Updates on June 9, 2026. County Administrator Gary Schmidt, would you please call the roll?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Roll call. Commissioner West. Commissioner Schrader?

Here.

Commissioner Helm?

Here.

Commissioner Savas? Present. Chair Roberts? Here. All right, thank you. I'll now recess as Board of Commissioners convene as a Water Environment Services Board of Directors. Gary, you want to introduce your first item?

All right, this is a topic for Water Environment Services Board, Sandy River Forest Main Replacement Procurement Process Request. Greg Geist, Director of Water Environment Services, will present. Go ahead, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Gary. Good morning, directors. As you know, our Sandy River Lane undercrossing, Force Main, was exposed during the December flooding events. We did get permission to do an emergency temporary fix this summer, but we need to get a permanent fix done by next summer to avoid potential catastrophic failure. So what we're proposing to do is a progressive design build process largely driven by schedule and risk. And so we're asking your permission to go out to notify the public essentially that that's what we intend to do.

All right. Directors, any questions?

Commissioner Helm.

Do we know the approximate cost of this, Greg? Initial estimate is about 1.5 million All right Sarah motion I Move to approve the alternative procurement process for the sandy river lane force main replacement project. I'll second that I

Excuse me. Director Helm was moved to approve the alternative procurement process for the Sandy River Lane Forest Main Replacement Project. It's been seconded by Commissioner Schroeder. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the poll?

Yes. Director Chavez?

Aye.

Director Schroeder? Aye. Director Helm? Aye. Director West?

He stepped out.

Okay. Chair Roberts?

Aye.

Motion passes 4-0.

All right, thank you. I'll now recess as the Water Environment Services Board of Directors and convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Gary.

Thank you. Next is non-competitive arts and cultural lottery dollar grant program. Presenting is Dan Johnson, Director of Transportation and Development. Go ahead, Dan.

Good morning, Chair Roberts and Commissioners. Each year, the Office of Economic Development provides the Board of County Commissioners with a list of funding requests for non-competitive grants traditionally awarded to arts, cultural, and educational organizations. For the 2026-27 funding cycle, OE, Office of Economic Development, has received funding requests from Clackamas County Historical Society and Clackamas County Arts Alliance. Those requests are a part of your packet of materials today. During a discussion on May 12th of 2026, you were approached by the Willamette Falls Locks Authority and presented a general overview of the current status of that project. And there was an additional request made from that entity for $120,000 for funding for 26-27. Staff was asked to bring back that request in context with these other requests that you're considering today. If you recall, just a little brief history on the Willamette Falls Locks proposal in 2021, The Board of County Commissioners approved $120,000 allocation for that. That was distributed out in $40,000 increments, I think, over a number of years. That funding has been complete. So essentially, the requests before you today are from Clackamas County Arts Alliance for $110,000, Clackamas County Historical Society and the Museum of the Oregon Territory, $100,000, and Willamette Falls Walks Authority, $120,000. When staff developed the budget for the Office of Economic Development, these are lottery dollars we're talking about, we had within that budget proposed approximately $210,000 for funding for these non-competitive grants. That is included also in the 26-27 budget going forward, so there are dollars available. IN ALIGNMENT WITH THAT CURRENT FUNDING LEVEL, WHAT WE PROPOSED TO YOU TODAY IS ESSENTIALLY SPLITTING THOSE DOLLARS THREE WAYS, GIVING THOSE THREE ENTITIES THAT I MENTIONED BRIEFLY PRIOR $70,000 APIECE. These agreements, or should the board agree to this funding, we would essentially be entering into formal funding agreements with each one of these entities for transfer of those dollars and the amounts to whatever amount and level the board desires. We will report to your county council to develop those agreements. So I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I might ask Laura Edmonds if needed to come up and answer, if I can't answer those for you.

All right. Commissioner Schroeder has a question.

Yeah, I, of course, am supportive of all of these entities. You know, we do have to split the baby. I wish we could give them, you know, full funding. I guess my question is that what are they delivering based on what we're giving them? Because they are nonprofits. We don't have any direct auspice or metrics. So should we require a report of some kind when we're giving people money? Because I know for years we've given money to both the Clackamas County Arts Alliance, which I support, and the Museum of the Oregon Territory, and the Willamette Falls Locks Authority. Gary, how much money have we given them over the years?

Approximately $500,000 in cash or in-kind services. Okay.

So I think the issue is, given what we're facing right now and trying to maintain a budget, I think we have to message folks that we can, I think, potentially get them something. continuing to ask us, I'd like to see them do a little bit more work on fundraising, I guess, in order to try and fill some of their gaps. Again, I support all organizations, but I know that continuously our budget And the lottery dollars, you know, can go towards tourism, but we have a tourism council as well, and a lot of these entities should be involved with tourism. So we're taking our lottery dollars, which are largely for business and community development, and, you know, so I'd love to talk to the tourism folks. I think we are having lunch with the tourism folks and see... If there's a way they might contribute based on the fact that, you know, arts and the locks and all those kind of moves, you know, are supposed to be part of our tourism infrastructure as well. So I'm not sure why maybe tourism could also help. some dollars to this or Maybe give more significant dollars to these folks.

Okay That's all we have not can affirm the fact that we have not identified performance measures with either of these entities previously if you do look at the materials from The Arts Alliance, they do give you kind of a summary of the 25, 26 work that was done. The Historical Society does not. They give you kind of an assessment of what they're looking to use the funding for in 26, 27 going forward. So, yeah, I mean, that could expand on a discussion with tourism to possibly fill the gap. that we will be leaving if it's funded short of what their request might be.

And maybe we should, you know, at least somehow with the folks who are giving money, have formal conversations. I don't think it's necessarily at this meeting. But, again, to get, yeah, we get reports, but to really sit with them on a clear idea of what the ROI is, return on investment, with some of this as well. So it's just informational. That's all I'm asking for. Thank you.

Right Commissioner Helm.

Yeah, I I to support a support these three organizations, but I'm And I also like deliverables as well, but so is this taking Money away that lottery dollars away from other organizations Dan or It is we have fully funded with the dollars available and

All the grant programs the board has authorized to date and the engagement that the board has authorized to date, those are all fully funded in the budget. So it's not redirecting any of those funds. It is money that theoretically could be used for something else, business-related, additional grants, whatever that might be, but it has not been programmed that way. The budget you see for fiscal year 26-27 provides a little bit of funding for this and then larger funding for the business outreach and engagement the board has proposed for the next fiscal year.

And I agree that there's, I think there's probably more tourism funds available than there are lottery funds available. I realize you did cut them all back to meet the $210,000, but yeah, it's, yeah. I have a little bit of heartburn over it. Thank you.

All right, thanks. Commissioner West.

I can't get my materials up in front of me. I'm trying, but my computer's not turning on and I don't have a printed copy, but I was just trying to reference some of the material that we've had before that we read. I think if you receive these funds that you should be able to show... some community impact in a way that is tangible. So if it is a life support funding and without it you would be irrelevant and the only thing keeping you afloat are these dollars, I think there's a larger impact with other organizations that are reaching more people and having more of a broad public effect for the good. than if it's going to something that's antiquated and no longer as relevant as other opportunities are. Now, they're all relevant. I want to be careful what I say because I know that somebody cares about all these different things in organizations. We have very limited dollars, and we have been giving money to some of these organizations that I feel like... don't even have the ability to be accessible to the public in a way that's meaningful or consistent, or they're having to be heavily, heavily subsidized, and the only reason why they exist is because of the generosity of the taxpayers, while still not having, I think, the same type of impact that maybe another organization would. And so I want to look at it through that lens specifically. And I know that one of the biggest conversations that has happened is with Moot, that museum. I think a hard conversation needs to happen about those dollars. It's hard. That's a legacy project for some that have done so much for this county, but I don't know if that's the best use of those dollars any longer. I think it's hard for us to say that publicly. I'll say it. But that's the one that is most glaring to me when these dollars are quite precious and they're very limited. And I don't know what my colleagues think about that, but I'm going to throw that out there for us to discuss publicly is funding in those types of instances and being a little more critical and having maybe different required outcomes and impacts with those. How do we maximize that? I don't know if Moot any longer does that.

So, Dan, I've been listing in. I had a little bit of a technical difficulty. Staff just helped me out with my iPads. I'm a little bit behind, but I'm catching up here. So the proposal you have basically is a little bit less to each of them, and so we're, so to speak, you know, slowly reducing, and if the goal next year is to reduce even more, or do you have any, what do you anticipate for next year?

We essentially reduced it to the amount of budgeted dollars for the next fiscal year and just split that across the three entities. The Willamette Falls lock requests, we didn't foresee that coming. And so we knew that historically the board has had, I'm not saying that has to continue, but it has had interest in funding the Larks Alliance and also Moot. And so we programmed dollars appropriately. The Willamette Falls Lask, great project, a lot of investment from the county and interest from the county. They came and gave a presentation. And the board had some interest in possibly funding that as well. So we basically just split the available dollars amongst the three entities. Right.

Well, I appreciate that the Clackamas Arts Alliance gave us some financials. I appreciate that. It looks pretty explanatory. I don't really have any questions there. I might take this opportunity to prompt maybe... moot and others to do same doing the same thing so we can get a better idea and you know show up progression on how they will recalibrate that and so to Commissioner West point I think maybe that that reduction spread across is a way to get there

have we ever I don't know if this is an idea I'll throw it out there maybe it's not even allowed is there a way to do an option with certain organizations where they have to it's a match where up to a certain dollar figure so if they want a hundred thousand if they want to get to a hundred thousand for their budget they need to rate if they raise 50 we'll give them 50 type of thing is there any A little more skin in the game to really do the work necessary to revive maybe a struggling organization. I would love to know, before we give you six figures, how many people in the last calendar year actually visited your museum? How many days are you available to be visited? What does your what do your overall? Financials look like in the only we only got anything from one organization about kind of their money situation You just brought that you just alluded to that commissioners office So they came prepared and I agree with your statements on what you saw there. I saw the same thing so I don't know. I don't want to just pull the rug out from anybody, but I also think there's an opportunity to have a better partnership or skin in the game through a potential match instead of just here's a check.

Well, yeah, and kind of, Pete, you're back in on that. I do appreciate the Clackamas County Arts Alliance opening their books for us. It really helps. But as far as Moot, I don't even know what their total operating budget is. Are we the better part of it? I'd like to know that total figure.

Gary can answer that.

Oh, Gary can answer that? Yeah. Do you know that number?

You are a majority of their funding.

You're it, yes. Are we a majority? Are we 60%? Are we 90%?

I don't have that number. We'll get that for you.

Okay. Well, I think that is good information, and you're right. I think they should be looking at other avenues versus leaning on the county. Our dollars are tight, and I don't mind helping out where we can, but we're asked from a lot of different organizations for a lot of money. So I think it's important that we just do our due diligence here. And I appreciate that they did break down where the money's going. That's great, but I'd like to know where it's gone and how much it does cost to operate their entire organization. And again, attendance, visitors, all that. Yes, metrics. Metrics, exactly.

Yeah, just a quick comment and that is Sorry about that.

It's off. Just a quick comment. I do agree with Commissioner West I mean I would like to see some performance measures and some measurables to say all right. Here's here's what we're doing are the numbers going down are they going up and I think just like I swear, every time I look, not only in Oregon, but across the country, economically, how so many people are struggling. And cities and counties are really having to live within their means and really be strategic. I mean, who doesn't like the arts and historical society and the museum and the locks? I mean, I love them all. I think it's just really being very... descriptive on how we allocate those dollars. And I think the more we know about it, the better. So I agree with a lot of what my colleagues have said this morning. So with that, I think that, go ahead, sir.

One quick question on the walks. There's a lot of entities around that area on both sides of the river, different competing interests, so many different layers of local and state government. Where specific because I would have looked it up again. I forget where because but they're working on my computer which has all my stuff, so What who would be vying for the money specifically for the locks is it with our is it the Grand Ronde is that we working through? Is that where that money would specifically be considered going is it going to Willamette Falls commit?

What I don't know I'm kind of locks authority correct Gary

The money you would give is to help the authority itself to run, to pay the executive director, to work on fundraising. It's totally internal to help the organization survive as it's trying to get ownership of the locks and transfer.

How much money have we given them?

500,000 over about 10, 15 years of cash and in-kind services. You've given a lot. You've heard my opinion on this. Last time, the board said no more. Yeah, I agree with that. That board's gone now, but you said no more commitment to this organization.

And where are we getting real movement? It's on the Grand Ronde side. Like, even what they're able to do with their, like, and kind of inch this along and show progress. Yeah. I wouldn't rather if we're going to do something locks related partner with the Grand Ronde specifically because I see progress. I see like it's Oregon City. I don't know. And so I'm getting glad I'm just throwing an idea out there. But I don't know if we should. I don't I'm questioning what to do with that specifically involving the locks. I'm just throwing an idea out there. Please engage with me and let's have a conversation. But that would be my those are my thoughts.

Yeah, just to kind of respond to that, that they are making progress. I mean, they have a timeline and are moving ahead. I think that probably things were a little bit stagnant for a while. I know Martha's been really involved in that. But I actually, from the conversations I've had, they are moving forward and really have a clear timeline about what's next. Martha?

Yeah, I was going to say the Grand Ronde is moving ahead. And I think on the opposite side of the river, there's a coalition of tribes. And it gets a little interesting from those of us who aren't tribal members about how those relationships work. And, you know, they're all sovereign nations, which is kind of above my pay grade. I didn't study to be an international diplomat or a national diplomat.

No bugs. No bugs.

But they've also got money from the state, if I understand, on the Willamette Falls side to do the work. And then we've got the Grand Ronde who is doing their work on the other side. So you've got two.

They got $45 million from the state, which shocked everybody. It's a lot of money.

Well, I think that that's been a little bit of a rub between the tribal entities, too. And I do think that Grand Ronde, I don't recall the number, did get some money, but not to that level of support. But the Grand Ronde is doing a fantastic job, I think, managing it and moving forward with it. And in the end, both sides of the river will be improved. And so the end game is a good one, the end result. But it's interesting.

The Grand Ronde's been the best partner to Clackamas County Board of Commissioners out of the whole out of everyone and it's not close We have the closest relationship the most collaborative And they're doing that same work on the Oregon City side and they're making progress.

That's true Commissioner Salas.

Yeah, well Martha really kind of spoke to What I wanted to say, I'll just add to that and that is it would be it would be really great if parties on both sides, River, or the project, we had more collaboration and work together, but there's certainly some... past stuff that we've all been through, dating back before, Commissioner West, before you were here, as a commissioner. I think everyone's doing good work. I just think that if they were to work together more cooperatively, maybe we'd get more things done and have more accomplishment. But I do want to give credit. You know, there's to the Grand Ronde, you can see a lot of activity there. There's things happening there. And I know it's all about staging and, you know, timing. I'm hoping that we can see some gains on the other side of the river with regard to the locks, right? Some action, hopefully. So I am... Okay with with the staff recommendation here today.

I'll just leave it there right is there a motion then I'll move that we go forward with $70,000 to each organization at this time I

Well, the motion here is crafted for us. I move the direct staff to allocate the lottery dollars.

Lottery dollars? Yeah.

Okay. Lottery dollar grants as presented.

Okay, great.

We'll do it. So, Martha, could you just restate your motion for us? Well, let me find the... Or I'll use Commissioner Savas's and you say something.

We can do Commissioner Savas's. I don't have a problem.

All right. So, just for the record, Commissioner, would you, Savas, would you repeat that?

Yeah. I move direct staff to allocate the lottery dollar grants as presented.

Okay. There we go.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right. There we go. We're getting it. Commissioner Savas has moved direct staff to allocate the lottery dollars... Grants as presented Commissioner Schrader a second of that any further discussion.

Yep Go ahead Commissioner West. I won't be supporting the motion as made I just think there's a couple things that are not being addressed still I don't want to give $70,000 to moot unless my questions are answered. I'm not there. I think maybe saying, hey, why don't we do a, you either have a real plan moving forward or we can do a match and we can bring them along. I, these are, I think we should be specific to where the relationships and the disparity potentially has been with Willamette Falls and that's with Grand Ronde. I'm convinced of that. Maybe not everybody agrees with me. But the way I see it is that they've made progress with less dollars and less support from the state and less support from the legislature and less support from Metro. It's really a great thing to have a former governor on the other side of the river pushing her agenda. And, you know, kudos to Governor Brown and her efforts there and her leadership. very, very generous endowment from the taxpayers. But they haven't had that same effort. And the Clackamas tribe, from what I can tell, are the original Native American entity that inhabited that space directly on the river. They all have a claim to it. I'm not trying to get into those specifics. we have such a good relation with grand ron i'd be interested in being more specific with those dollars if they were interested in working with us and collaborating to help them on the oregon city side now that's not a deal breaker for me i don't know if we get the whole board there but i am definitely going to vote no because of the i don't think we're there with with specifically moot in this motion yep if i could uh add one thing i think that um for example the locks i know the city of westland and

Others also see this as an important economic driver as well. I also see that without those locks in operation that there's a lot of work along the Willamette that can't be done because they don't have the ability to move heavy equipment up and down the river. So I know that at, I think it was Christine Lewis did a presentation not too long ago and kind of gave us a timeline I don't have it in front of me, but as to the progress that they're making, and I could see that they were moving ahead and that I'm looking forward to seeing some action take place on it. So I would be in support of it. The other thing I might suggest, too, I also hear you, Commissioner West, is PERHAPS OVER THE NEXT COURSE OF THIS YEAR, WE COULD DIRECT STAFF TO HAVE THEM COME AND DO A PRESENTATION ON MATRIX AND TRYING TO KEEP THE BALL MOVING, BUT LOOK, AS THE FUNDS GET TIGHTER AND TIGHTER, IT WOULD REALLY BE NICE TO HAVE A PRESENTATION ON EACH ONE OF THEM AGAIN, MAYBE ALL ON THE SAME DAY, SO WE CAN KIND OF HEAR THAT WOULD BE MAYBE AN OPTION THAT WE COULD THINK ABOUT. AND I THINK COMMISSIONER HELM WAS UP NEXT. GO AHEAD.

PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER WEST. I'M JUST I JUST THINK I NEED A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION AND WHEN I HEAR GARY SAY THAT IN THE PAST OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BEFORE ME YOU GUYS HAVE SAID NO MORE WE'RE NOT DOING THIS AGAIN. And yet we're doing it again, right? So I'm like, when do we stop enabling or whatever it is you call it when you just keep throwing money down the black hole? And not that all of these organizations, again, are, I think are very important to Clackamas County. The, you know, Moot is, they offer a lot of really wonderful things for the public. And I... It's just really hard when I feel like we're solely supporting them and they need to be doing more fundraising or they need to be doing more to help support their own organization. We can't just always be there to bail them out. And the whole locks thing, that's a big kind of a conundrum because you want them to move forward, but then we've been doing this for 15 years. So when is forward? We did see a timeline. It was like 28, 29, I believe, on when things are going to start happening. I actually don't know how I'm going to be voting on this.

Are you more inclined to a pause at this point?

I'm more inclined to pause. I really would like a little more information on moot and on... You know, the timeline or the numbers on the Willamette Falls locks, you know, the fact that they did get $45 million from the state was, you know, getting $70,000 from us is like, whoop-de-doo. I mean, that money could go to another organization, right, and make more of a difference. Sometimes when you spread the money so thin, you're not making an impact.

You're doing more harm than good. That's right. The 45 went to a different entity. That's the Coalition of All the Tribes. Not just to the locks. Okay. Yeah. No, they didn't get that money. That's a totally separate pot of money. The locks is its own authority. And the idea was that they were supposed to be, you know, or trying to fundraise. I'm not being candid here. And that being an authority gave them the ability... to move this forward as an entity. At one point, what we had wanted to do, some of the context here, is have one of the state agencies take the locks over. And Governor Brown at the time just basically said, hey, you know, H no. They're not doing it. Then they farm the authority with the intent that that body would manage it, get the dollars they need for it, and push it forward. And as I said, we've been generous through the years, and we think it's a great project. Unlock the Locks has been here for a long time. But, yeah, but those are two different. All right, that's good to know. Thank you for that information.

All right.

Commissioner Salveson and Commissioner West.

Well, I mean, I think we're all in different places here. I'll just say. I do have a soft spot for history and the museum, and I think that it's as strategically located as it is, and it's like a one-of-a-kind facility, as well as all the . That's a lot of work, right? And history is history, and I think this is something that's not unique to any museum or anywhere else where they do struggle, right? And there's a lot of nonprofit aspects and other historical assets that are being managed and so forth around the county and the state frankly and I think it would You know to come to us and engage us a little bit more frequently somehow to let us know the status and how maybe we can how we can be of assistance, not just financially, but promotionally, right? How do we encourage people to visit the museum and see the assets? To me, I see the TDC has a role in this as well, right? I know we're having lunch with them here pretty soon, right? But that's a conversation. I just see the opportunity for, as I mentioned with both sides of the rivers, there's opportunity for those collaboration to work together to help one another. And I'm not saying they're competing, but I think more coordination and collaboration would be of value. But I do have a soft spot for the museum just because of its unique place where it's at and the facility itself and the awesome view it has up there as well. I wish it was more utilized.

Yeah.

Commissioner West.

Yeah, I just feel like regardless of whether or not we give this grant to the way it's proposed now to the LOC's commission, they're gonna be fine. I mean, they're gonna be fine, but I can't ignore the disparity between the two sides of the river, and I can't ignore the difference of relationship. And so if we were going to still invest in the locks, which I sounds like that's a need. I think that's a five zone decision. Like we all care about the locks. That's a big deal. Have some skin in the game. Why can't we have skin in the game with Tom water village? Why can't we just be more engaged just down the road at Tom water village? And those. good trusted partners in the relationships that we have really fostered year after year with that with that tribal government um and i have the utmost respect for for who we're dealing with with um with grand ron um we this county the staff in this county has long-standing personal relationships with the leadership and the staff of that tribal government And we can be a little more nuanced and specific and do something that's, I think, really a good feel-good effort with the Grand Ronde tribe. I don't know. the locks Commission and Governor Brown's you know windfall of taxpayer dollars and all the things you're gonna do to set all that they're gonna be fine they're fine I'd like us to maybe direct it to somewhere a little more unique and and diversify those funding options to tell them what it that's that would be my idea I I don't disagree with anything Commissioner's office just said about moot I don't know. Can somebody answer this question? Does Moot own the event space upstairs? Do they get revenue off that event space, which is a great event space?

I believe they own it. Gary's got a comment to that.

Clackamas County owns the land. The museum owns the building.

So there is revenue opportunities that are being left on the table, and we won't ever get to those revenue opportunities unless there's a real plan moving forward to utilize that space to its full capacity, to not have to rely so heavily on taxpayer dollars. Having that conversation coming before us, working and planning with them, working and planning our staff on how to maximize those opportunities is probably a better plan going forward than just... Because the board made a decision for a reason previously on to not move forward with this again, and there was a good reason behind that. I was on that board, and so was Savas and Commissioner Schrader. So we came to that decision because of... real concerns. It was already well discussed and thought out. But I would like, if we engage with them with any more money, I'd like a real plan moving forward on how to maximize those events and dollars. I think tourism plays into that. The event space is great in a revenue producer if used correctly. You could do wedding receptions there. I've been to many, many meetings there for many different organizations. So that's what I would, those would be my two thoughts on how we'd like to move forward. Yeah, I know it's a little different than the rest of the board specifically on dealing with the locks idea, but I still think we can invest in the locks. I think we should just do it with Tumwater Village.

Let's see. Commissioner Savas.

Dan, has anyone reached out from the Grand Ronde for any assistance? I'm not aware of any.

I do sit on the Grand Ronde Community Fund and regularly I'm able to have a super vote. So I try, you know, we look at, we have a whole level of assessment we have to do. I can get staff to give you a briefing on that. And then we meet and we have a small grants program and a large grants program. So we are disseminating dollars. Actually, the Grand Ronde is one of the major philanthropic organizations. because they have an asset in their casinos and that kind of thing, and they give back to the community, not just to other nonprofits. For example, this go around Todos Junos in Cambie, got dollars from the Grand Ronde to do that and to do their functions. So that's another arena where if people want to apply for dollars, For instance, the museum, I would suspect, would be able to do that. I don't know about the Locks Authority, but they do have an umbrella with arts and culture as well. But you have to apply and make a case in order to get those dollars.

Right. I asked the question kind of knowing the answer. But I would say the Grand Ronde has resources, right? And I think they also seem to have the independence and want to be nimble. And I don't think $70,000 would make much of a dent in Tumwater Village in the sense that, again, because they have so many resources available. But there again, I knew that they have won some state assistance, right, for some of the work that they're doing there. So I'm not saying that they have all the money they need. They don't. But, you know, I think these are... more resource constrained agencies before us here, right? Doing good work and not having, well, with the exception maybe of Willamette Falls Law Authority, I get your point. But I think we should either call the question or not, right? And I don't want to rush anyone, but I'm inclined, and just knowing there's a motion out there, to at least get that settled.

Yeah, which I agree.

Could I make one last comment? Sorry. I've got my light on here. Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you, Chair. Again, I want to stress that the LOX authority is separate from... The native, you know, are the other tribes in that coalition. That's like the, it's a trust. They have a trust. So they're two different entities. I'm just going to make a suggestion that, like, for example, I don't know the executive director of MOON. Never met the person, never talked to him, never. I don't even know who's on their board anymore at this point. And similarly with the Arts Council, we have clarity with the board on the locks authority, who's there, who those folks are. But I was going to suggest that we might want to I hate to put more on our plate, but we also might want to talk to those various folks and get to know who they are and where they are so we can have some clarity and work with them in a way that's productive.

So is your thought moving forward on the locks and discussing the other ones?

No, I'm at the point where let's just move for this point in time. I'm willing to move forward with all three, but I honestly think that we really haven't had... any in-depth discussions with any of these entities for quite a while. I do know Moot, they seem to have some stability with a new executive director, but they've gone through numerous executive directors. So I need to know, I'd like to know where that status is.

I agree with that.

Yeah.

All right.

Okay, so that's all I have to say.

Okay, go ahead. Either way, $120,000 or $70,000 or whatever is not a lot for either side of the locks, period, especially on the other side of the river. But you could take that money, and it's arts-focused, and you could do a beautiful collaborative piece between the county and the tribe and signify some relationship there that brings people together. So you could do stuff like that that is arts-impactful. You could do... you know, a small garden, you could do a piece that is impactful and unique to that relationship. And that's maybe more what that money is about than just some kind of administrative locks thing that is going to go forward regardless of not whether we give that money. So I'm still a no vote. I think there's more to hash out here. And, you know, I think I just really want to respect and call out the relationship we have with the Grand Ronde. I appreciate it. All right. Clerk, will you call the poll?

Sure thing. Commissioner Helm? No. Commissioner Schrader? Aye. Commissioner West?

No.

Commissioner Stavis?

Aye.

Chair Roberts?

Aye.

Motion passes 3-2. That was a close one there, folks.

Here we go. All right. We've got a lot of good notes from that. We'll consider that in future funding discussions. Thank you for that 44 minutes of lively dialogue. Painful.

Painful.

Thank you.

Not a heck of a lot.

All right. Next is Clackamas community college workforce development grants. This is also lottery dollars. Dan is also presenting. Go ahead.

In the interest of time I will make this quick. The board of county commissioners had a focus in partnering with This is about workforce development. And essentially back in 24-25, they approved $100,000 of funding for the career and technical education, the CTE scholarship program. Program supports student enrollment in the CTE, programs helping them gain the skills needed to enter the workforce at higher wages and achieve long-term self-sufficiency. CCC is equipped to replicate this program in 26-27 should the board desire and we have funding in place in the 26-27 budget to the tune of an additional $100,000. There's materials that are part of the packet that illustrate the programs that are being supported and also an affirmation from the college that a total of 50 participants have been supported through this IGA to date. We'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

All right, questions. I've got Commissioner Savas. Go ahead.

Yeah, so you may not have the answer to this, but a couple, three weeks ago, I was driving down Beaver Creek Road, and I saw a little small protest, if you will, signs out, senior citizens. I guess their issue is complaining or concerned about some of the programming in the automotive being dropped. I mentioned this with Chair Roberts. He's aware of that as well. So my question is, it seems like the college is contracting in some areas. I'm not sure. And knowing how much Impetus we put on our senior citizens and not there again. This is not a program that is designed for senior citizens But also some of the signs were about the programs affecting New up younger people up-and-comers that would take advantage that same program So I thought it was an interesting dynamic that both sides were making this case if you will Again, that's not our business is the college, but I couldn't help the fact that they were out there for a Couple three weeks. I believe they may still be out there a little bit, but the signs were the last time I drove out there So I I guess on my question is proportionally and looking at it from an industry standpoint Is the demand, and I can tell you what I'm hearing on my side of the world, is it because the demand is down in the industry or is the demand down for the college itself as far as a programming they offer in that field. So from a field standpoint, what I do know is that there's a high demand and a shortage of people in that industry. But I guess the question is, are they looking to the college itself or not as the place to get that training, that vocational training? And I don't know the answer, but it's a lot, but I'm putting it out there.

Go ahead. I think I do. I called Dr. Cook on this because I got a call from a citizen about a program that was being dropped. And there is a lawsuit going on. So he was a little, I don't want to say vague, but because there's an ongoing lawsuit going on. So these are hobby classes. So they attract a lot of people who come in and work on their own vehicles. And it's... The college wants to support these programs here that they've shown us that are going to give ongoing higher paying jobs. So I understand that is a very passionate group of people who work on their cars, but the college can't support hobby programs as much as they used to. So I think that that's what you're seeing. And Dr. Cook feels bad. He's like, I would like to support all these, but just like everyone, dollars are tight. They have to figure out where they can cut. And I wanted to know the answer to that myself. Yeah.

I guess just a quick response, Ned, is that I'll make it more clear. If... There is a demand in the industry, which there appears to be, and it's designed, let's just say it's designed as a hobby program. I'm not here to say it is or it isn't. If it's designed as a hobby, maybe it needs to be redesigned.

Right, and I suggested the same thing.

To be more industry related. So that's my question versus just wholesaling, making it go away.

All right. I think Commissioner Schroeder was up.

Yeah, Diana, your explanation helped a little bit because I'm looking here and they are still offering the automotive service technology program. The issue is... if they're very strong in these other programs, particularly the career pathway sector with health. And so if who's really signing up for these programs is not really doing it for a workforce pipeline, that's the issue you have to ask. where they may be getting their training someplace else, but as a hobby, their focus here is, you know, a pipeline to a modern workforce. And a lot of these, like the water and environment technology, renewable energy, landscape, I mean, a lot of these are pretty salient, I think, in terms of, like, the apprenticeships in terms of really being focused more on getting people jobs.

Yeah, and may I respond to that too please? Yeah. I think there's a lot to be learned from people who've been working on cars for a long time or any type of hobby where you have the expertise, you have the knowledge, you have the history, right? And sometimes those people are best at teaching the younger population how to do those things. So I don't want to discount any of those people who've been doing it for a long time and this is being taken away from them and I understand. THAT HURTS, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE ON A CAREER PATH WHERE THEY HAVE A HIGH-PAYING JOB, AND I JUST UNDERSTAND TOO DR. COOK'S REASONING THAT THEY'VE SLOWLY CUT BACK ON SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS THAT HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF ATTENDANCE, AND SO IT'S HARD TO SUPPORT THEM. A LOT OF THEM ARE IN THE EVENINGS, AND AGAIN, THEY'RE TRYING TO FOCUS ON THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE. I don't want to say younger people because there's a lot of people in their middle ages going back to college to learn new careers. But yeah, that's some explanation.

All right. Commissioner West.

Well, I'm a product of community college and programs maybe like this that we have listed here as different career pathways and the sectors are broken out. maybe an easy question. I look here and I see entry-level positions within the medical field, like medical assistant, nursing assistant, things like that. Is health careers, does that encompass things like a radiology technician, nurse? Because they do offer a two-year nursing program for your associates, the science and nursing through CCC. So When we talk about health careers broadly, do we have nurses out of the 16 participants that are benefiting from these dollars? Are a little bit higher acuity, a little bit higher level of healthcare practitioners that are available in these colleges? I don't have that specificity. Just random?

I mean, we've got... Because the intent was to ensure that they had... One, did they have a program that we could partner with? And this is the program that they laid out to us.

What was their pathway to come up with these? I know that they're looking at skilled and technical fields that there is a need in the market. I know they have a... The two-year program that they utilize is actually the OCNI program, which is under OHSU. Basically, you graduate with your two-year nursing degree. You can roll right into your four-year program at OHSU, and you're doing the exact same curriculum and requirements that you would do if you were going a full four years at OHSU within the nursing program, but you save a lot of money. They're hard programs to get into. When I applied to nursing school, I think it's still like this. I think it was 800 or 1,000 applicants, and they took 80 of us. And CCC is a little smaller than PCC, and they might only take like 60 or 40 applicants, and they could have close to 1,000 that apply. So they are very robust, great programs. I would have loved to see actual nursing where there is a specific shortage on here also. And I think you get more bang for your buck by getting somebody through that nursing program that's highly competitive through the programming. There's a lot of opportunities out there for medical assistants and nursing assistants and phlebotomy, and a lot of times you can learn those things even on the job, or OHSU will just train you straight out the gate. I'm trying to just get a little more bang for the buck when I look at this in the healthcare sector. We need good radiology techs. You also have a very, very dynamic, robust program through our local community college for rad tech. I do like when I see electrician and plumbers and apprentices for those skilled trades. We all know the need for that. I don't know if I agree with all of this or how they got to these different fields. I don't want to say that we don't need them, but I don't know. I'd like to meet, I don't know.

I think that if I could kind of follow up on Commissioner West, you kind of took the words out of my mouth, to be honest. As you know, Laura, you did a great job hosting our first healthcare roundtable. And I think the message was pretty clear across not just our county or the state or this country, a shortage of nurses and CNAs and all the medical people in our aging population. And so I guess that's... what I'm thinking of and I know I don't want to discount the importance of these other positions and I also kind of look at one of the main functions of the county is health, housing, human services and so maybe you can just kind of enlighten us and kind of how would this apply or not and to educate us on this, Laura.

Okay, so I'm going to be really quick. So basically, since we are currently reporting to you for midterm data with only 50 scholarships for this current funding year, the last couple years, when they give me an annual report, they do give me the specific breakdown on how many students in each CTE course. Yes, there have been the nursing, the medical assistant, medical and billing, and coding, and phlebotomy.

But the RN program is included?

The nursing program is included. And I would like to kind of refresh you since it's been a while. These grants are generally for low-income individuals, veterans who are going through programs, stuff like that. So this isn't the totality of all the students going through their programs. Totally, yeah. This is just the small amount, the small numbers who are benefiting from the scholarships to be able to offset their ability to support their ability to graduate the programs. How many nurses?

Do you know how many nurses? Do you have that number?

Well, previous year it was one for their AAS degree. So that's the difference. Each year is different. I mean, everything that's benefiting from these out of 90 CTEs, yeah, it's... Yeah.

I'll support this. I don't want to rock the boat too much, you know, but if I look at some of these and I look at the hierarchy of needs, there are some positions here I'm not going to... I mean, where I feel like... You know, you could affordably get a low-income person who has the chops to do it through a nursing program and have a bigger impact on the community as a whole than a fitness specialist or somebody or a different type of position on here or a human resources person. And this is my opinion on what I look at the overall need. So I think just being, I'd like to see it maybe a little more targeted. And rad tech specifically is an important one. The rad tech and the nursing program specifically, I think it's super hard. It's an affordable way to do it. Almost everybody in that program is living on Top Ramen and in the library. And Many of them are single moms or individuals that have made career shifts and changes, and they come from very humble beginnings, too. But that need is so huge. Overall, I'd like to see maybe this expansion in those two programs as an option for scholarship opportunities.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Schrader.

Yeah, just to give this some context, we were the first county to identify health care as an economic engine way back in 2008. eight, I think, or prior to that. Anyway, one of the reasons we looked at it is because of a shortage of nurses, okay? So I know that that is built into this program because that was one of the biggest things that jumped out at us when we did it. And we built the Harmony Campus with urban renewal dollars specifically to give them a hub for medical technology and these other issues. And I think I'm willing to go ahead. I absolutely think we should go ahead with the scholarships. But again, perhaps we should have a group meeting with Mr. Cook, who's a great president, done a fantastic job, and just get an update on where all these are. Again, I think they're great programs. They are getting people jobs. I do know nursing is a part of it. But I don't know if they have Rad Tech.

They do have the program. I know that. They do? Yeah.

Okay. Well, that's the other thing is that if they have it, you just got to get people out to take it.

I might be biased. That's the other thing. I might have some bias for the nursing.

No, but the nursing shortage, because that's how we got to know. Right. Oh, the nursing home folks, actually.

Brad over at... Yeah, we talked about that with the hospital directors.

Yeah, because we were... This is just a... We talked to them directly, and they were telling us in care homes and things they were having massive shortages, and so we were responding to their needs at the time.

So I think we're probably at a point to get some motion.

Chair, I move to approve an allocation of $100,000 to Clackamas County Community College for career and technical education scholarships.

I'll second that.

Commissioner West has moved to approve an allocation of $100,000 to Clackamas Community College for career and technical scholarships. Commissioner Schrader is seconded to that. Any further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, please call the poll.

Commissioner West?

Aye.

Commissioner Helm? Aye. Commissioner Schroeder? Aye. Commissioner Stavis?

Aye.

Chair Roberts?

Aye. Thank you both All right, Gary. All right. Thank you. Next is your review of your board business meeting agenda for this Thursday June 11th 2026 you will have public communication three public hearings two of them are boundary changes a set the third is short-term rentals first reading to change the code then you have a pretty short consent agenda for the Board of County Commissioners have any questions on any of these items would you please let me know and I will answer it for you or bring staff in the room to answer it for you on Thursday. Next sheriff's office budget line item authority commissioner Savas has asked for this topic go ahead please commissioner.

All right commissioner Savas you want to bring this conversation forward and. I'll turn it over to you.

Yeah, I had consulted with staff and others I shared an email with legal counsel. I'm trying to cite any Any particular statute that disallows Budgeting by program and category and I think I'm not going to put words in the the legal counsel's response but the way I read it was and what he sent me there was nothing that contradicted the ability to allocate funds By program adopt a budget by program and by category So as opposed to line item budget I think light item budgeting would be too intense and too direct whereas doing it by program gives still gives the sheriff the authority to adjust spending within those programs. And as I understand it, we've discussed this with financial staff as well. And as I expressed to legal counsel, I'm willing to take this and find any examples where or asked for, I did request anywhere where it's disallowed or agencies or attorneys or counties or the AOC, but I'm willing to pursue it. But I don't think it's that big, I can't fathom from an accountability standpoint that I think there would be an expectation of accountability regardless. And Gary, you have some other information you've shared. Can you share that?

Yes, I've been working with Billy, too, and I know Jeff Munns has offered some input. I follow Oregon budget law until someone tells me I'm not. And my reading of Oregon budget law by Oregon statute is, yes, you have the authority to budget down to the program and the category. So for example, office of the county administrator, board of county commissioners is the program. The categories are personnel services, materials and services, capital. You have the authority to set a number for all three. Any department in office, including elected officials. What that means, though, is the department must spend within that dollar amount, and if it appears they're going over, they just come back to you in a supplemental budget and say, can we spend, can we readjust the money? And then you will approve it or not. So you have the authority, as my reading, to do that for any office, including the sheriff's office.

So with that, thank you, Gary. With that and knowing that that was the will of the Budget Committee, as I recall, and the only reason I think that it was not successful through that budget week was that there was the inference that somehow it was not appropriate or legal or whatnot. It may be a little bit of confusion about, and I'll take responsibility for that, about line item budgeting versus program budgeting. So, but I propose that we have staff prepare the budget and appropriate or adopt it by program and category. And Gary, do I need a motion for that or it seems like it might be appropriate? What's your thoughts?

I just need to know at least three of you agree whether it's a head nod or a motion. And my question is that for every department in office or just for the sheriff's office?

Well, from an accountability standpoint, you know, knowing that there was an audit finding, you know, I won't belabor that at this point. But what's your recommendation?

It is burdensome for the entire organization, but also I can see the item of fairness applied to everyone, not just one office. But it would be burdensome for departments. It just means more supplemental budgets, actually, would come to you more frequently as departments needed it. Okay.

to you so I guess I'd want to know is my question is you know why do you want to focus on the sheriff's budget as far as category and program I guess I'm you know it hasn't been done before ever that I ever know of and I'm trying to understand your motivation and reason behind it well I'll be

I'll be diplomatic and candid, try to wrestle both those at the same time. There was an audit finding that the Sheriff's Office budget overspent, and I think that there is a call. I feel a responsibility, and others feel a responsibility to address that from an accountability standpoint. What are you going to do? I think there's been a history, an unfortunate history of having... Difficult conversations and I again I want to plot everyone and there is a great improvement both on the CSO CCSO finance side, and I think there's been a great And also with the workgroup and the sheriff. I think the tenor and the tone has been way more constructive So I think there's positive movement there But at the end of the day I I do believe that the fact that we are And I think Mr. Rhodes pointed it out, articulated it very, very well. Every year we are adding to the budget, right, the sheriff's budget. So I think having a better understanding of where and why, what program is it that is struggling or failing needs to be understood, and what program specifically was a result of the over-expenditure program that the audit found. So with that said, I think we don't have the answer to that because the dollars have been moved around, as I understand it, and it's not clear. And I think that the public probably deserves that clarity. So if there is an overexpenditure, now we'll be able to see it by program and be able to maybe be a little bit more prescriptive as to the remedy for that, right? And so, Chair, if that answers your question, I can go into greater detail, but I think that is the one that jumps out at me, is that there's a measure of accountability. I don't know how to fix something. All I know is that when I asked the question about the 13 deputies that were going to be assigned to the courthouse and that we had already funded it the year before, and why are we funding it again? And by the way, where did the money go? The FTE count didn't move. In that regard so it but it's it's it's was that not was a six million dollars Gary Was was the amount for the 13 deputies or was it nine million?

I Don't remember I'll have to yep, so I think One of what I do want to give that maybe the sheriff can come up and answer a couple questions for us but I did want to kind of take it back to the point of And I'm gonna be how do I say it I polite, respectful, and try and, let me see, talk about some difficult conversations. And I can just tell you one of the main reasons why I ran for office was I watched the budget hearing with the former chair, and I would describe it as dysfunctional. And I believe the public has an expectation. Whether you like each other or not, you've got to work together. Gary and I, as we came in shortly after taking office, I had a very frank conversation with Gary, set out those expectations that we needed to work together. There was a conflict on the numbers. I think a lot of us didn't understand the numbers as to the sheriff had a position and the county finance had a position. And I was trying to take a neutral position to really understand it, as was, I do believe, Gary. And I specifically recall vividly in that budget meeting really as Cindy was saying, go forth and hire. That was one of the last things I heard in the budget meeting last year. And on the other hand, I'm hearing, no, we don't have the money to hire. So over the course of this last year, which I will give credit to both the county finance, Dan was very key in this as well as helping us get our arms around this, as was Gary and everybody came to the table and we identified really some system errors in the APOS system. I don't need to go into big detail about it, but kind of the add to pace. That issue has been worked out as we went along. I know the direction was also I heard directly from the sheriff early on and conversation with Gary is if I'm going to balance this budget I need to cut now and That I was present during those conversations where she was wanting to make those necessary cuts and at the very same time Gary and Dan and many of us were trying to really get to the bottom core of those numbers. And we eventually did. And I still remember Dan's words in a meeting. Dan, I'm putting you on the spot. You better start making some cuts and reductions. And that's exactly what happened. They didn't fill positions. And I think even before that, they weren't filling positions. And then historically, I've had conversations with Gary about this too is, and I think It was also discussed in the budget meetings about kind of this historical supplemental budgeting process. And I think that gives not clear direction sometimes of like, hey, come back to us. Here's what we're giving you now. Come back to us later in the year. And I always felt like That wasn't really clear direction that we should be saying here's your budget live within it I get it if there's a crisis you that's when you come back and talk to us and so on I Can just tell you that over the course of the last year accounting finance the Sheriff's Office finance Gary and and everybody else has really come together to really Solidify what we believe are the true numbers to the budget and we're making progress. I believe in one more year We will have this dialed in But this always obviously takes time and and we're going to live with a number of openings and I think that this board has been very clear that they support public safety and They wanted to add as many positions as they could. And historically, what has also happened, I will tell you, is back when I was sheriff, I would say perfectly clear, the ELED does not fund enough deputies. And at times, the county would say, okay, we're going to pick up these extra ones to backfill the ELED. And really, I think that gives you this false assumption that, hey, the ELED is doing all right, which it's not. So I think this year we budgeted to actuals within the ELED, and I believe that the budget that we have now from the sheriff is really a sound budget for what she has brought forward and I believe can live within those means for the year and like the sheriff to have the ability to manage her budget and come back to us this next year. So I know some things have been said. Sheriff, I just want to kind of give you an opportunity to kind of respond to some of the things as far as your thoughts on not coming in on budget and those comments.

SURE, CHAIR, I APPRECIATE THAT. IT HAS BEEN A WORK IN PROGRESS. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE APOS REPORT, THE ALL POSITIONS BUDGETING TOOL THE COUNTY USES TO BUDGET OUR PEOPLE HAS BEEN OFF BY MILLIONS. And that has been the discrepancy between our team and county finance team. And this is, I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just telling you that to budget to a report that is chronically underfunding my office is problematic. As the chair mentioned, and not just several previous years, go forth and hire. We want you to hire. You have all the money you need. Our opposition report is telling us you have all the money you need. to hire all of your positions, 607 positions. And that is just simply not true. So 44 positions, last year I held vacant. If I had hired every single position, I again would have been completely upside down. I didn't do that last year. And if I had, and believe the APOS report, it would have been catastrophic for this county. My team analyzed the APOS report, worked with county finance to identify the deficiencies in that report, and I believe this upcoming fiscal year, this 26-27, that'll be before you, is the first sustainable budget that I have had since I have been sheriff. So I worked closely with the county administrator for years, knowing that our teams disagreed with the numbers. And I can tell you that my team, and I appreciate the chair during budget season, if folks are watching, tuning in now, and not watching the entire budget process, because no one really wants to watch the budget process, that my team has been correct. And so, but I'm not pointing fingers. I think we should move forward from here. DO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO THROUGH MY PROGRAMS AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND IS IT WORKING, IS IT NOT WORKING? I CAN TELL YOU THAT AS I MENTIONED IN THE BUDGET PROCESS IS THAT I HAVE A STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER SAVAS YOU MENTIONED DO YOU HAVE THE KPIs AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT TERM BUT KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS. WE DO HAVE MEASUREMENTS. THIS IS POSTED UNDER THE TRANSPARENCY SECTION OF MY WEBSITE. This goes by program by program, and it tells you what our key performance measures are. I can tell you how much an average SWAT call costs. I can tell you an average call for service. I can tell you what an average visit to the Family Justice Center, how much that costs the county. That is under my transparency page, along with my use of force reports, our internal affairs investigations. I'm probably the most scrutinized department here in the county, and we should be because of what we do and the services we provide. So do I believe that we should go through program by program? I believe you have the ability to do that, absolutely. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT? I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF YOU DO THAT FOR ME, YOU SHOULD DO THAT FOR ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, NOT JUST THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. AND SO 75% OF MY BUDGET IS PEOPLE. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FUNDING FOR THE COURTHOUSE POSITIONS, I WAS VERY FRANK WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. HE HAD PROMISED THOSE POSITIONS AND I SAID I, LOOKING AT MY BUDGET, I CANNOT put all those people to work. I will be upside down if I hire for those positions. And so the 44 vacancies that I'm continuing this current year into next year of holding vacant do include some of those courthouse positions, but also include jail positions, jail deputies, Patrol deputies, parole and probation folks, and professional staff. Because I have to take a look across the organization and determine what can we do without impacting programs, without closing down jail beds, without impacting calls for service. And it is a balance. And so... when I hear that I haven't made my, there's an audit finding that I was over budget. Of course I was over budget. I told you I would be over budget. I was told to hire up. And so meeting the needs of what you're asking me to do, balance with the available funding. If I had hired up this last year, it would have been bad, very catastrophic. And so I can tell you that, moving forward, and I know I've talked to Commissioner Schroeder about this, is that this year is the first, this upcoming year, 26-27, we use the correct numbers from the APOS report to budget our positions. Our materials and services, we started there so we can actually provide guns and safety equipment, vests and uniforms to our folks and work back from there. And then that's one of the reasons why the 44 vacancies are being held vacant because I don't have the funding for all of these positions. So I know I covered a lot. And I can tell you that I believe the hard work of our teams and the chair's help and the county administrator's help that we are on a very good path. And I'll stop there.

All right. Commissioner Salves, go ahead. Yeah.

I don't want to go down rabbit holes, right? And I want to be respectful, and I want to be constructive. And I don't disagree that if we do it to your department, we should do it to all. I'm not advocating one way or another. It just seems to me that we've had the most amount of... time and energy spent and a lot of questions and I would say to some degree, I'm not blaming anyone, yourself included, I'm not blaming anyone. I think it's been by your own staff's admission over the years that they didn't have a lot of answers to the questions because they didn't understand the financial structure of how anything was constructed as far as how the city contracts were billed. And I'll use a levy for example. You're nodding your head, so I'm sorry, but I'll use a levy for example. And we talked about how that millage rate was derived, right? And you mentioned way back when we first talked about it that you felt that the finance staff told you what the number should be and I saw the email and that's not what they said actually. So the point of it is, and I discovered this in 2000 very clearly talking to your finance staff then, that they did not have the mathematical understanding and structure to actually calculate out what ELED ought to be, what the levy ought to be, what the city contracts ought to be. And that was six years ago, right? Now, has there been gains? Yes, I would say that Mr. Williams has done great work, right? We're getting there. But it would seem to me that if I was in your shoes, I would embrace the idea of having budgeting by program and budgeting by... adopting by program and adopting by category. That way, if there is any overtures or whatnot, we'll know where it's at. We'll know precisely where it's at. Right now, we don't know nothing, right? When I was a board member, a budget committee member, board member said, yeah, let's backfill ELED because it was important. And we were told it's a couple positions down or a million dollars down. We funded it. But we weren't off by a million, we were off by several million. We were off, not by two employees, we were off by a dozen. So, same thing with the levy. We're asking for more money to do the same thing. The levy's off by $12 million annually. I believe that's the number.

Can I respond to that?

If I can finish, if I can finish. Okay, I'll respond after you finish. My understanding of the APOS is that's a tool, and I'm inclined to ask Ms. Becker, if no one else, to come up here and respond to that. Gary, we talked about the APOS. My understanding is, and here's what I've heard from my staff, is that we want to give good forecasting. We want to know where we're at, but we don't get the information either on time or all the complete information. entered into the system. That's been a long-standing challenge. We're getting closer, we're getting better, but it's still not there, Sheriff. So how do we, how do I, as a person who's got the responsibility and accountability for the budget and the general fund dollars and the taxpayer dollars, help find a remedy if whether it's ELE backfilling or it's backfilling for the deputies at the courthouse or all the things that we do, right? Statements like, I'm going to spend the general fund money first and the levy last argument that we had a couple years ago, right? It just didn't compute to me, right? It still doesn't compute to me. So all I'm trying to do, I'm trying to I'm hoping that you'll embrace the idea of adopting my program as a means to discover where those dollars are going. If we run short somewhere, let's just say it's patrol, then we know that maybe all those other ones are just fine. But it would be a great diagnostic tool in the future. I don't see the logic of not embracing it as a sheriff. Help me with that.

You covered a lot of ground there. So I can tell you that it comes back to the opposition report. And as I said, 75% of my budget is in people. And that's where the money goes. And I can tell you that county finance, if we're spending materials and services inappropriately or things that they don't think we should be spending it on, they're watching my budget. It is people that we were spending the money on. And the all position report is the county's budgeting tool that plugs in incentive pay, all the add to pays, the PERS overtime, that all factors in to the pay. And having that off by a significant amount, we're talking millions each year, We know that that is a big part of why our teams disagreed with what it costs. It's the people costs. And so when you talk about, I'm gonna switch gears to the levy, about the levy being off. This is a levy that you approved as a commissioner to go on the ballot. The same exercise we just went through to talk about how we factor in and look at what it costs to run that program. right, run that levy, how much it costs for, and it's mainly people in that program. You approved that, Commissioner, just like you did this last one. And it was fine. It was what the tools we were using at the time in collaboration with county finance. So we didn't just pull the numbers out of the air. And having the APOS report, off will affect that as well. It's not off by 12 million. I can tell you that when we built that levy, that we did not factor in the county's change of business practice of indirect costs. It's always taken its share of allocated costs, but the indirect cost is a huge amount that hit the levy after the levy was built, after you approved it to go onto the ballot. So there are millions in the cost the county put to that over the five-year period of the levy. So I disagree with you that somehow the costs were so far off, and that is the fault of my office. And so I disagree with you on that. And quite frankly, I don't want to be discussing this right now here because we have a levy to pass to sustain 92 positions in my office, and this creates the appearance that my office has no idea what they're doing with finance, and that is absolutely not true. And the analysis that we did with the APOS report, we put every single paycheck of my people into that, into an analysis, and compared it to each position, what it's budgeted to, and that is how we discovered underfunding by millions of my office. And so we can talk more about that, but I can tell you that the levy that you voted to put on the ballot was sustainable and not off by millions as you continually claim it to be. That we've over-promised and under-performed for the levy, which is absolutely not true. It's one of the reasons why we've kept this county safe, one of the safest counties in Oregon. And without that funding, without the people of this county looking at the sheriff and thinking that I and my team do not know what we're doing with finance is simply not true.

Yeah, if I could respond. You had a chance. I would like to respond. I'm trying to make sure I go around and cover everybody who gets a chance to give their input. I just did want to respond to a couple of things, because I want the public to understand about this overreach issue, which no understanding of overreach There are so many eyes on the budget that county finance, the sheriff's office finance, Gary, that you do know if you're in an overreach. And that is, it's not we're shooting in the dark. We actually have actual numbers that we follow throughout the year. And if it's overreach in a certain percentage, it sets off alarm bells. So there is a lot of safety measures in place. Once again, we also have audits every year that take a look at those issues as well. I think the other thing I wanted to discuss too, and that's just because I was so directly involved in this when I was actually sheriff, and it has to do with identifying the cost per employee, right, for contracted services. And I can just tell you when I took office as sheriff, You're correct, Commissioner Savas. We were not charging adequately. That was really clear right out of the get-go that I saw that as a problem. We created an entire team that basically studied that for about a year. We went up to King County, Washington, and then later we actually involved every city manager to participate in that cost model to ensure that we weren't overcharging and undercharging. That's all we want to do is be fair across the board. So everybody sat around the table, got to give their input, their own financial people from those cities. And believe it or not, we came up with a number. They felt it should even be higher. And it was raised. And so that had been reevaluated a number of times. And I know the sheriff, since she has taken over, they continue to reevaluate that. What causes the problem is, is that Number one is if you either negotiate a labor contract midterm in a levy or you increase the allocated cost to a dramatic degree midterm in a levy, you suddenly throw everybody in the hole because that wasn't projected. So I can't remember, it was exactly maybe 11% increase in allocated costs. Well, that wasn't calculated when we went before the voters and asked them. That was a dramatic increase, as was the CCPOA contract. So you start to create this kind of tsunami of additional costs that impact it. And the only way you can counteract that is either keep positions open or make cuts. So I do, I mean if we did the program, I would say you do do it countywide to all departments. You just don't focus on the sheriff if that's what you're doing. Even before we did that, I would want to know from finance and everybody how difficult is that going to be and how much time and effort because you might have to hire more staff and finance to be able to manage all that. I don't know the answer to that question, but if we're going to do that, I would really want finance to kind of come before us And also asking the sheriff you know would it cost her more staff to be able to do that? So I don't know the answer to that, but I think that's what we should ask So I've got Commissioner West and then back to Commissioner Salas go ahead So um a lot of thoughts swirling Oh, and I'm sorry. I have Gary, too. Sorry.

Can I, because I think I need to formalize my thoughts a little further. Can I yield my time to Commissioner Savas?

Can I go? Gary had his light on before anybody. I'm sorry. I skipped him.

I'm not taking sides here either. I totally trust my staff as the sheriff trusts her financial staff. I just want to be crystal clear on these position reports. It is a dual responsibility of my finance staff and the sheriff's finance staff. Please don't charge my staff made an error. You haven't said that directly, but that's what I'm hearing. It's a collaborative approach. It's in the budget manual that everyone follows, including elected officials. The APOS reports are prepared by finance, and then the department reviews them to see if they're accurate. So I just want to say I'm not taking sides. I'm not blaming anyone. It's a collaborative issue between both of our departments, Sheriff, that those reports were inaccurate. They're now accurate. I have to say that because my staff is sitting here demoralized by hearing these words said publicly. Thank you for letting me say that.

Can I yield to Paul? I need a minute longer.

Go ahead, Commissioner Sevelius.

Again, I'm gonna try to do this in the spirit of resolving the challenges we have. I wanna try to do this in the spirit of working collaboratively. So Sheriff, I'm just gonna let some of the things you said that were directed towards me slide. Okay. I will respectfully disagree with some of those things you directed towards me, right? We go on the information that's provided by staff. When it comes to your office, we rely on the information that's logged, entered, that comes from your department, right? And constantly, whether it's this finance team or finance teams in years past, They've had that challenge of being able to see the full picture. We can only do, they can only do what they see. They can only do what is entered from your department into the system. Mr. Chair Roberts, I appreciate you saying it. I brought it to your attention. You're right, I did. But you never changed the millage rate for the levy when you were sheriff. When I first came to you, when you were sheriff, ELED, I brought that to the attention also. There was a big, big issue. We had budget committee members resign over that.

Yeah, I'll respond to you on that.

My point is, and yeah, did labor contract affect that? Absolutely affected it a little bit. Was it the cause? No. Did other things affect it? Yes. Was it the cause? No. Did they all add up to being part of the problem? Yes. But I'm sorry. The numbers are the numbers. And I appreciate the fact that we took the steps. And unfortunately, I had to use the word I'll file a complaint when we did the budget for ELED. I want this resolved. I disagree. I feel I'm on good footing and standing to say that the numbers that we were provided over the years were inadequate to actually set that millage rate. We took the trust. I, as a board member, I take responsibility, okay? I trusted that the number brought to us whether it was Sheriff Roberts or whether it was Sheriff Brandenburg. And I appreciate, I want to say applaud you because you and I sat down for lunch one time and I said, you know, the levy's off. You and I had this conversation. I go, it needs to be increased. And you did. The first time the levy came up, you were sheriff. You increased it, right? I trusted that that was the right number. I didn't set the number, our staff didn't set the number, but I wanna thank you for that because you recognized it and you made an adjustment, right? Now, did we get fully there? No, we didn't, okay? I don't think we have to, frankly, raise the amount to provide the same amount, I think we could actually find other things, other ways of calibrating it. But the point is, is that if we can't agree, I think we need someone on the outside to look at this I think we need to hire someone on the outside to come in and say, you know what? There's something wrong. We haven't resolved it. But I think the finger pointing is going to get us nowhere. I want to be collaborative and towards getting the right numbers, providing the service, and gaining and garnering understanding and respect in order for the levy to be successful. I hear so many conflicting things, but at the end of the day, there's a saying in the computer world, junk in, junk out, right? If we don't get all the information in on the expenditures and the cost Great. You're not going to have a good number. And if it's 75% personnel, I don't dispute that. But 25% of $100 million, the other side of the equation, that's $25 million, right? I don't know where the problem is. The challenge is that it's more, more, more, and more, and it's more. But we don't know where it goes because when we say, and I remember having the conversation a year ago about the positions, you know, we're hired up. We had the year before, three years ago, we had 86 positions filled in the levy. And then last year, it was 86, right? And I guess now it's, I'm not even know what number is. Maybe it's 92, I think. The point of the matter is, is that... We wanted to see it fully funded, right? We had money left over in the levy that was not expended this year and last year, right? That was not fully expended. And... So if the money was there, but it was not expended, and the positions were never filled, I think the challenging thing for us is that, again, we need the complete information. And again, let's just take a moment and just recognize the great work that's been done in the last year. And please continue that. And please, let's get into the spirit of collaboration. Please embrace adopting a budget by program and category as a tool to see where the challenge is and how to resolve it. I see it as a remedy, I see it as a tool, thank you.

All right, I'll give you a chance and then it's West and then Helm.

So the levy increase, the conversation you and I had, was because we needed to add people. Because the county could not afford to add the 16 patrol deputy positions in the levy, the detectives in the levy. And that was what the increase in our conversation was, as I recall. And that was because we needed to add people. and the county could not afford to do that. So that was the increase. And I know you had asked previous Sheriff Roberts to increase the levy the last time he came up for the levy when he was sheriff. And so I can tell you a conversation I had with the chair was I asked him, how did you make it through these levy cycles with just a straight renewal? And there was no adding of people. And he said that was because he guarded that levy, the funding. And so to spend it only on the positions, the levy positions. And not to argue with you, but there's plenty of money in the levy, this current right now, this levy. When it was built, it was not built with the changes that county finance under the county administrator changed. That's one of the things. So the allocated cost model change after the levy was already enacted, the indirect costs recovery to pay for internal services, all that, and you mentioned 11% for those costs. It was actually 30% that was pushed out, not only to the levy, but to all of our funding sources, the 30%. increase which is huge and then combine that with the increase in the CCP away contract that you know all those costs went up not only the levy but all of our funding sources and Mind you our contract cities. Okay. Oh this hits every every single place that we push out our costs, too So, I mean I disagree that the levy did not collect what it needed to collect to provide the services that money was was built to pay for the services. I can't put all of the services to work when I have to pay the county the increase in the fees that were placed to the levy after the levy was built. My goal for this levy in 2021 was to come with a straight renewal. And that didn't happen because of the cost increases to the levy. for all that I've just mentioned here. So I know that we could probably talk many more hours about this, but the pressures put on the levy after it was built, it's not sustainable. And that's one of the reasons why we have to ask the voters for an increase to maintain the same level of services. And that'll be for another discussion as well. But the change of the cost model, the county did not just with the levy, but with all the funding sources and our general fund sources, was quite a large change and pushed a lot of costs to the levy that were not anticipated.

Thank you. Right. Commissioner West.

Oof, I'm tired.

I know.

I'm in a unique position where I get to be very reflective about my term here as a County Commissioner, which is over in just a few months. One of my biggest regrets as a County Commissioner is the unfortunate riff and the relationship that I have had regarding this issue alone with the sheriff, especially since I'm somebody who is such a strong advocate and stalwart for law enforcement and public safety, not just in my career. as a nurse that's worked hand in hand with first hand responders but also as a policy maker and someone who has been quite vocal against a culture that has unfairly demonized and has unfairly worked to actively defund and undermine that essential core service of law enforcement. I can sit with Sheriff Brandenburg over a drink and we can talk like we're best friends. Unfortunately, in the public, that has not always translated as the case. But that doesn't mean that I don't have the utmost respect for the stars on your collar and the badge you wear, despite political tensions between us, Sheriff. And I think as we wrestle with this very solemn duty as commissioners, regardless of those past tensions, and I think it's important I say this publicly, We both share a lot of common ground and want to get this right. And so I think Commissioner Savas is authentic, despite some of our disagreements or misunderstandings or whatever our impasses are. When he wants to work collaboratively, I want to work collaboratively. I want to try to get this right on my way out before I leave. And I don't want to be adversarial with you. So I want to lay that groundwork. And because some things are bigger than the titles we hold. And this core service is one of them. So I hope the public knows where I'm coming from after saying that publicly. It's not easy for me to say. The ask right now, is some line item authority at the programming category level. That's the ask. How often does that happen in Oregon local governments, special districts, state level, county, city levels, Never, rarely, if ever does it get to that point where there's so much tension within the public dollars that are limited, everybody's coming from a good place, there at a certain point is a lot of public eyes on it, there's some tension, there's perceptions that can become realities, there's all these different competing factors. There is the ability within the law. It sounds like we've got clarification to enact the tool of program and category budgeting Okay, that's the ask We don't need to rehash a whole, you know, the past, but that's the ask before us today. And so why would we do that? Why is that important? Okay. Well, it helps prevent, and I'm not, I'm just saying why in general, I'm not throwing an allegation to anybody. I want to be clear. Helps prevent corruption, perceived corruption, a little more critical look at dollars. Um, I don't believe there is any corruption in this case, but that's why maybe somebody would use that tool. It boosts accountability. It boosts accountability for the citizens to see their public officials doing responsible work in fiscal management and making sure we're not breaking promises and that we are being very clear in our effort. It encourages probably public engagement, because we're gonna get a little more nuanced, a little more specific. You get clear financial information. It empowers the community. Maybe they'll participate a little bit more. So I think that overall, it is a little bit of sunlight to maybe build public trust. Now, okay, that's maybe why we do it. Maybe why shouldn't we do it? I respect Sheriff Brandenburg's job that she's doing. I respect Chair Roberts. We don't always agree. But why are they concerned? Why don't they want maybe to bring that? Maybe they do. I'm not. But maybe why wouldn't they? I don't want to cast aspersions on anybody. Well, we've learned that it can bring some really extreme inflexibility when we do that. That's been a concern that the budget committee talked about, where it would bring some inflexibility where you can't as easily be as nimble within your departments based on those constraints as you need to be to run your department. And we realize that it is a specialized... professional role that none of us are experts in, but Sheriff, you are. So we should think about that if we do this or answer that question. Are we focusing on, are we focusing still not on results, but on how many paperclips you can buy? That's not results driven either. It is what you bought, but not what your outcomes or those purchases produced. where we had questions regarding metrics, right? So sometimes maybe going to that level, that could be a concern. Is it an administrative burden? Maybe there's some things I've thought about. My gut reaction as a leader sitting here on the dais is, How do we move forward? And maybe it is necessary to have that program category look at things. We've never done it. And no, it's not easy. And I don't want to do it in a way. I don't want to. It shouldn't ever feel like an attack against your professionalism and your leadership. Sheriff Brandenburg, it should not feel that way. It shouldn't be used as a weapon against you. It shouldn't be used in a way to get a political one-up on somebody. We shouldn't be tallying points today. It's three and a half years. I'm super tired. And I'm trying, and a lot of us are trying in good effort and good faith. So I'm kind of looking at the ask today. And I don't know if we're totally there with making the progress needed. And I don't know and believe maybe this is the only tool to get that done. And so that's where I'm landing. I haven't had any conversations or much conversations with my colleagues about today's ask. I think it's important. And this gets really hard when you have Respect for everybody you work with in a collaborative way already and and I and I want to let Well, I want water under the bridge from our interactions in the past sheriff Brandenburg and I we may not agree on everything how pit but there's no use of There's there's no there's no there's no good to the public to to look that way and so I want to look to the future So that's my thoughts on it. Well Do we want to use this tool? Do we think it's overall benefit? Does it potentially have some limitations we need to be honest about? Yes. But are we at the point where the public is going to need us to find a resolution? And I think your department will survive just at the budget category level. And I think the board would feel like it did its job. solemn duty with public dollars. And then in the next budget cycle, when this board is different than it is today, I hope we leave it better than how we found it. And there's a lot of work that's gone through the last three and a half years to get there. That's where I'm leaning right now. I've sat here and listened a lot, which also isn't easy for me. But I want to leave this better than I found. I don't want to feel like in December 31st, where I'm no longer sitting on this board, that I didn't help get this right. And that's how I'll be deciding today. Thank you.

All right. Commissioner Helm.

Yeah, I echo a lot of Commissioner West's comments, but I'll just say from my standpoint, number one, I have great respect for your department. I have great respect for you, Sheriff. And a lot of progress has been made over the last year. Don't forget, my first week last year was budget week. It's imprinted on my brain forever and ever. It was not fun. It was not fun. I found this year even less fun than last year, just because it was so prolonged. And I think this is a growing pain, both for your department, for us, and we're learning. I think doing the line item thing is a, I think it's a one-year thing. I think it's just a way for us to kind of wrap our heads around what the work group started, which is more in-depth information in your department. I don't see it as undermining or not trusting you. I think it just helps us. I think it will help us sell the levy. I mean, I really think it's going to give us a better understanding of when we go out and say, here's why the levy needs to be passed, we have all that information in our heads. I will say budget committee member James Rhodes gave a very eloquent speech at the very end of the budget process that pointed out something that I didn't know and that was he was going back to the 1998 to now to 2026 and that there's the same amount of officers on On the streets as there are now, after this many years, we don't have more patrol. And that's what the citizens see. That's what they want. They want to feel safe. They want to feel safe. like when they call 911, someone's gonna be there. And yet 150, I wanna say 157 new positions have been added. Now we do have the Family Justice Center, we have other departments that have grown and all these things. And those are the kind of things that I would like to find out more about too. So I'm not opposed to the line item thing, but I don't think it would be an ongoing thing. think it would just be a trying to figure it out over the next over the next year to make sure that all of the numbers are right we we have to answer to our constituents how their taxpayer dollars are being spent and I think that is first public safety that's everyone's number one concern and then making sure that our public safety dollars are being spent the way our citizens felt. We got a lot of, during budget, after budget, we got a lot of communication, as you probably did too, from people who were so frustrated and very vocal about why they did not pass the levy. So I want it to pass, we need it to pass, and the more we understand, I think we'll be armed with that information. So I'm inclined to agree that this is something we need to do, even if it's just temporary.

back to you chair all right commissioner schrader um i just wanted to ask my colleagues that you've made uh both you diana and paul have been on the work group with the sheriff and have made significant progress is my understanding could you tell us what that progress is because um i think that it will help this discussion because i think we this is not something that we're trying to be punitive. We're just trying to get clarity. That's all. And that's what I want to just say to Angie. And we've been friends for years. And I don't think this is something, it's just clarity. If we frame it as clarity and transparency and working together. I actually think it might help, beloved. I do too. And I guess my question is, have you done line by line in your work group? No. Well, then do you want to? I would say, do you want an entire commission involved or do you really want to work on that? as part of the committee work that you've already set up. That's my question. I'm talking about logistics. I mean, I trust my colleagues to work and I trust Angie. So how might that work, do you think? Sure, for me. Is that okay? Craig, I just asked that question. Yeah, sure, go ahead. Because we've already got the work group. We've already got people.

Just try and keep it short. I want to keep it short because I know we've got time all here. So, Commissioner Schrader, the charge was that we would not, this was not a budget committee. It was not a subset of a budget committee. It was simply a work group to work on some of the, Understandings or misunderstandings and trying to understand the challenges that we all face and what we're not seeing or seeing and so forth So I think it was really constructive and it was really positive and I'm hearing Support to continue on maybe with a slightly tweaked charge that falls within the constraints of what a Budget Committee can do when and when not and Maybe it's more on the accounting side that gets there I I will say that, as I mentioned, I had PTSD the weekend after the budget committee, directly after. I had three themes that was puzzling for people that were watching our meetings, and I was stunned by how many people watched those meetings. Number one was claims that we were cutting the sheriff's budget. when actually we were trying to add to the sheriff's budget, but didn't know how to do it, right? Claims I even heard today that the sheriff wanted to cut. Chair Roberts, she mentioned that the sheriff wanted to cut. And so she had the prescribed letter with the $6 million in cuts. And then at the budget committee meeting, Your claim was that we were actually cutting when we were actually trying to add two, but trying to do it with metrics, like what's working, what do we want to do? So all that said, I think the public picked up on that. You know, were we actually cutting, were we actually adding two? And so there's confusion around that. And that number was about $6 million. But the sheriff was asking for... us for six million more. So it really wasn't cuts, it was really an ask for six million, or if I don't get it, I will make these cuts, right? So either, however you want to couch it, I think that the walk away from a number of people watching was, which is it? Right? Which is it? And I think we were looking for the metrics to guide us as to what it is. I think Mr. Rhodes pointed out some issues, and Commissioner Helm articulated some of those, right? But here I go. I maintain that There's no loss of revenue. It doesn't add to or subtract from any part of the sheriff's budget. The sheriff's budget by program was presented by the sheriff. We're not changing that. We're not tweaking a damn thing. All we're saying is we budget or adopt a budget by program and category. So therefore, Chair, I move that we direct staff to adopt the budget by program and by category.

I'll second for the purpose of discussion.

I have a question.

Yeah, I had a lot of other people that had some things to say too, so for the purpose of discussion. And Gary, could you draft the motion that they just made? Yes, we'll type it up. And so I don't think Martha was even done. She just was. Martha, go ahead and finish.

I'm just going to reframe this, okay, a little bit. Because as I listen to all of this, I believe this should be a collaborative exercise on transparency to build trust. Because I think that's the issue. This is not, it's trust building, it's transparency. It's trying to help us as well as the public understand, and I think it could be a good tool for getting the levy passed because what you really want to have out there is the fact that the sheriff is working collaboratively with us to make sure that gets passed, and that's including looking at some of these line items. But I guess my question is, logistically, if you're going to do this, I'm assuming it will be under the umbrella of the work group.

which I would think would be a good idea.

Okay. In other words, I mean, that's something that I trust everyone to come. I trust everybody to come back and report to the rest of us because God knows I got plenty to do, you know, and I know that both of you have delved into it. So with this vote, could I get it on the legislative record that this is the process we're going to use? Or do we include it in some kind of a motion or amend the motion?

I don't know.

I don't see this as detrimental. I think that we have a lot of smart people at the table, and we can get more clarity as we move forward. That's all.

I do like Martha's suggestion of having this group because it would be a deep dive over a period of time. So go forth and conquer and ask for every number you want to see. I think that is a good point. I do really want to... I think this is really important because... really words have meaning and Commissioner Savas one of the comments you made is you don't know where it goes and I'm just saying that is extremely dangerous because County Finance knows where the money goes the Sheriff's Office knows where the finance goes and I just want the public to know that we know where those dollars are spent down to the dollar and And I know, kind of coming back to the millage rate, and I'm just going to talk about that a little bit, and that is, Commissioner, you're right. You asked me to increase the public safety levy. And I'm going to be very direct here that I didn't feel it was appropriate that the sheriff's office constantly be the cash cow for the county. And let me tell you how cities add police officers. Every year, they make a decision based on their budget to add one or two officers. They might wait a year, then they'll add an officer. And over time, they keep up with the population's growth. And that hasn't kind of been the historical perspective of the county. It's that we're just trying to hang on to what we have. And that's why I was so concerned about the courthouse of the now $16 million annual debt service and what is that going to do for the future, which is impacting our ability to add incrementally. And so I and Martha was a part of this. Martha was on the Blue Ribbon Committee, a citizen-driven committee to look at what the recommendation was. And one of the issues on that, I still have the letter, it basically asked us that after months and months and months, the recommendation was go out for a public safety levy. And in this letter, the chair of that committee, one of their big concerns, and the committee talked about this, is that if they go out for the public safety levy, they don't want the county to turn around and cut their funding. Very first year, they cut the funding. Another year, it was 0%. When I say a cut, 0% or 1% is a cut because your other costs are going up much faster than that, right? And I felt as a service to the public that, number one, I was going to do my best to hold our own. And if we were to go forward, there needed to be an agreement with the board that we weren't going to cut that. And that's really where... As we look at a potential levy in the future. I think this board needs to come to a resolution If we are going to support this public safety levy We have to have a commitment that year two three and four till that levy is comes to a conclusion We're not going to turn around and cut on the back end So we have to have a forecast to say look our commitment to the public is if you pass this public levy levy we're not going to turn around and cut the sheriff's budget and and and I think Again, words have meanings. When you say cut, what I'm trying to explain is that your costs go up around you. And the sheriff, for example, she has 40-some positions open, right? So we add to our budget, right? We give her additional money, but it's nothing close to filling those 44 positions. So it actually is a cut. Did you get a little more money? Yes, because the cost went up. But you didn't get enough money to keep those existing staff. So I think we're kind of splitting hairs a little bit. And to just be clear, it is a cut. She doesn't have those 44 positions. They're open. BUT YES, THE BOARD DID GIVE THE SHERIFF ADDITIONAL DOLLARS. Really, we have come a long ways, and that's what I can appreciate, you know, what Commissioner Stavis says. We want to work collaboratively, and I think that a step one could be really kind of this work group diving in and having the ability to ask a lot of questions. Martha, I'll give kudos to you. That was your suggestion.

But I think what I'm saying is we should do the line item. I'm just asking where is it going to land? And then I think it, listen, I do think it needs to be done. We have too many unknowns. And, yeah, we're not public safety. I'm not a sheriff's officer. Angie has stopped me before. Oh, I didn't have my tags on my coat. What I'm saying is we're all very collegial and I think the line item But I think that doing it under that would give you In a sense the space to really hash this out Okay, and really in a safe and That's what I'm seeing. I think that's a good way to go about it and then come back. and let us, you know, the rest of us know what you're finding with the sheriff. But is that acceptable? I'm just trying to move us forward.

I think that's a conversation for, there are two separate things here. I think that's a conversation I'm happy to engage in. I would love to continue that work group with a different charge, a specific charge that we all agree on and the sheriff's office agrees on too, right? Our staff, finance. So the administrator agrees on. It has to be something that's results oriented. It's not just sitting in a room to talk, right? Right. No, no, no, I think. We want results. We need accountability. I want the levy to be successful. I think taking this step, again, doesn't take or add money to the Sheriff's Department. It provides a level of accountability to garner trust from the public. I think that's a value. I heard it from a number of members, both internal and external. So Chair, in the interest of time, I call for the question.

I'm sorry, I got to speak, please. Is your motion for the entire county or just for the sheriff's office?

Well, we could do it for the entire county.

I made the motion that was not sheriff office specific. Okay. So I made the motion that it applied to all departments, and maybe we learned something else, but I have a lot to say. I'd love to respond. A lot of things have been said, but I'm not going to because we'll be here forever if we do.

There is a significant impact to do this. It will be more staffing. My staff is texting me madly here. I'll make it work if that is your direction. There are approximately 600 programs and categories countywide. So for every department to be monitored, you'll probably be doing supplemental budgets. I'm not saying don't do this, but there are impacts. I'll make it work, but there are significant impacts countywide. Can we please not call the question?

So I'm happy to, on that note, I'm happy to change my motion to make it sheriff office specific. I hate to do that because I want to be even-handed, but maybe we learn from this. As Martha pointed out, we learn from this. I think Commissioner Hell made the same statement. And if we continue it, great. But I think we can learn from this. And this is the department that had the audit finding. No other department had that audit findings about over expenditures. So I think it's appropriate. So I will make the motion. I move that we direct staff to adopt the sheriff's office budget by program and category.

Okay.

I'll still second, but I would love in the discussion of the motion, not every commissioner has weighed in yet.

Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

But I mean, we're now amending the motion. I still second, but I haven't had a chance to weigh in on legit questions. Sorry, I'm not trying to, I know time, I know, I get it, but I'll be quick. I do think, first question and then a quick comment. Can I go to Gary, Chair, with a question? Yeah, sure. So we are supposed to adopt the budget next Wednesday. That's on the calendar. And so logistically, I have no idea what our plan is with this. Are we wanting this to just be the board looking at these programs and categories before we agree or not agree to adopt the actual budget as our final authority? Or is this going into next year in perpetuity beyond, like... This year, and we're, I don't understand, are we going to do a task force? It is not clear, but we do have a budget to adopt.

This is for fiscal year 26-27.

Okay, so next year? This one year, 12 months on.

So it'll be next May y'all will be doing this? And next May we can reconsider if we want to continue doing it.

And, you know, my suggestion, too, is if you're going to do it, you should do it for countywide.

I don't disagree with you, Chair. I do understand, though, like the public question intention is not with everybody else. And it also is logistically unfeasible at this point with the time constraints wrong. I don't oppose taking it. Oh, my word. I don't oppose, like, doing it, but we haven't had... the public questions around it. I do wanna push back on definitions. Chair, the definition that you used about growing government budgets, and just another great example, because this is what we use when we look at the state general fund budget, in 2005, 2007, that budget, that general fund was around $12 billion. And now 20 years later, that is now almost $40 billion. And they often use the exact same reasons for it's a cut if we don't get exactly what we wanted or we didn't get more than we got last year. Nobody in the private sector can ever operate that. No business, no corporation. And so, yes, we have expansion. We have mission creep. We have issues around security. expenses going up that are legitimate. We have inflation. Those are things that are all true. But I will always push back against the narrative that just because you didn't get the increase that you wanted or you didn't stay revenue neutral, that somehow that's a cut that only exists in government and it is One of the main reasons why government is ever growing and then becomes a financial burden on taxpayers and constituents and has mission creep. So I do want to put just a little bit disagreement. I'm not saying that we don't need to look at like how to appropriately fund the sheriff's office, but fundamentally just have a different outlook on government expansion on that issue. So I don't know. My questions aren't answered yet. I don't know exactly what this means in the next week.

Council just I think it would be helpful to have mr. Muntz come up to the table and try and answer that question in terms of Scheduling under the statute what the realities of what you're looking at sure I can answer that too So my staff is preparing the staff report today.

It's in the resolution that you're going to adopt that says this language That's it.

It's for one year only So chair initials time again. I call for the question I

So I want to make sure we've got this on the record, because Commissioner Savas has moved direct staff to adopt the Sheriff's Office's budget by program and category. It's been seconded by Commissioner West. Any further discussion? My only discussion is that I believe it is best to do it under the work group. And if my suggestion is if we want to head down this direction, then I would say county finance and We should get a estimate of cost and impact and time to do it both for the sheriff's office and countywide What is that impact we're pushing something on staff? And there's been significant cuts so and particularly in the sheriff's office right now and there there's not fluff so that would be my suggestion is to If you want to do it now, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, I would ask the work group do it. You can take it on and let county finance look at the fiscal impact for their and staff to do it both for the sheriff's office and countywide. So that's my input. With that being said, clerk, call the poll.

Okay. Commissioner West?

Aye. Aye.

Commissioner Helm? Aye. Commissioner Schrader? Aye. Commissioner Savas?

Aye.

Chair Roberts?

Looks like I'm the lone one. No.

Okay, motion passes 4-1.

All right, well, moving on. You have two other items. You're already late for an event, and you have another event in 15 minutes. Would you like to just hold these two items for next week, or we can add, in your meeting tomorrow, we can add issues to tomorrow morning.

I would suggest pushing it next week. Okay.

Okay. We'll hold those for next week.

All right.

That is all for today.

All right. Gary, I don't... I don't... Are you adjourned? Full calendar. Yes, we're adjourned.

Oh, we're adjourned.

It doesn't...