Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for joining us for today's June 17th, 2026 Board of Deschutes County Commissioners meeting. We will now call the meeting to order and thank you all for joining us. So the first order of business today is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join us.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Next, we will review and approve the agenda. Do either of my fellow commissioners have requested changes, additions, subtractions?

So moved.

Second. been moved and seconded. We'll call for the vote. Commissioner Adair?

Yes.

Commissioner DeBone? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay. Moving on to citizen input. If there's anyone who would like to provide public comment this morning, please fill out a blue form if you're in the room or if you're online. Go ahead and raise your hand online. We'll start with the first blue form that we have. presented to us from Ron Boozell.

Good morning, Deschutes County Commission and everybody else that's here today. I'm Rondo. I'm a local resident. Been here for over half my life. You'll recognize me. First I wanna say, yay for freedom. This Friday is officially Juneteenth. And it's my own personal opinion that we should evolve this holiday into something larger than 4th of July because Juneteenth is inclusive and refers to the freedom of us all and celebrates all of our freedom. But that's not why I'm up here this morning. I've done some research, and I've noticed that Gaza, although it's not really, I guess, a city anymore, doesn't have a sister city on the whole planet. Not a sister city. I wonder why. I know that Bend has a sister city already. But, you know, the county, although technically not a city, can really make a statement about who we are here and what we care about here. I would like to make a formal application. If there is one to be made in paper, I'd like to see it or have a suggestion how I can move forward from here. I would like Deschutes County to be recognized as Gaza's sister city. If you know anything about what's going on there, this is way beyond political. I can't even speak details to it because I've been online with a lot of friends who live there who have been sending me pictures and video for a long time. I'm getting sick and tired of us being silent about it. So this is my gift to Chutes County for this opportunity, and I would like somebody to participate with me in this. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Randall.

Is there anyone else in the room who would like to provide citizen input? Eric, are there any hands raised online? Okay. Well, we can move on to commissioner announcements. Are there any commissioner announcements this morning?

Oh, I do have a letter from our new solid waste director, Jeff Merwin. I'm sure he's really happy he has the job. It's his dream job. So apparently when we added recycling, the state said it had to be mandatory recycling for Deschutes County. And I'm hearing from a lot of people that... already do it themselves, they don't want the charge, etc., etc. So Jeff did point out in an email to me a couple clarifications, and this is what he said. Both Republic Services and Cascade Disposal agreed to waive the backyard and walk-up service fees to those households that have special needs, and this service is not discretionary, whether for a short-term or long-term duration. And then Republic Service agreed to offer a 25% discount for hardship cases for rural recycling upon customer request. Unfortunately, I asked him back, and that only applies to the $6 upcharge that they are now making in their system. So you can only get a request of 25% of $6 upcharge. Sorry about that. And then customers should be able to call and have their cart removed. A lot of neighborhoods had theirs delivered, I believe, on Sunday. Anyway, those were the three points that Jeff wanted to make and just want to let the community know. It was from the state that this had to be mandatory.

Last night, Project Wildfire recognition event at Sun River. So we had a group of people all getting together, celebrating the effort throughout the year as there was a wildfire happening. But luckily, it was being laid down at the same time we had dinner. So a couple annual spark plug awards for the Project Wildfire. Congratulations to Les Adams and Monty Damerol, Southern Deschutes County residents, very involved with everything. And Stephen from Sisters Fire being involved in – doing outreach and education. Thank you.

Stephen Lord?

Yes. I forgot his last name, so thank you so much.

Yes. He's great.

Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, we can move on to our consent agenda.

So move.

And I will second it. It's been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion? Looks like just item number two is convening for 911, and then it goes back to the rest of the larger county business.

We can do it all under one consent agenda. Yeah, I'd like to just thank all the people who have signed up to serve on the Dog Control Board, the Bike Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Special Road Districts, and the Blackbeet Ranch Service District. That will call for the vote. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Chair votes yes. And we can move on to action items. So we're just about on schedule. First up, item number 11, a Core 3 project update and potential lease and memorandum of understanding with Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council on behalf of the Core 3 project.

Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Christy Bollinger, Deschutes County Property Management, and I'll go ahead and have the group introduce themselves.

Good morning, Commissioners. Shelby Knight, Community Development Programs Administrator with Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council.

Mitch Pitch, Chair of the Core 3 Onboard. Mike Krantz, Chief of Police and Bend, and Co-Chair of Enforcement for Core 3.

Okay, great. So commissioners, members of the project team and executive council are here this morning to provide a core three project update and also request board support to enter into a lease and an MOU with COIC on behalf of the core three project. And we'll get more, we'll get into more details about those two documents throughout the presentation. With that, I'll turn over to Shelby and members of the executive council for the presentation.

Oh,

Grab the mic a little closer.

I never do well with microphones. Thank you, Tony. It started out as an idea many, many years ago and kind of became a dream of many to have a facility that would provide training for all our law enforcement, fire, and first responders to is now on the verge of becoming a reality. A lot of work has been done. Commissioner DeBone was instrumental in that for many years as chair of the Core 3 Board. And I just want to thank all those who participated in this effort over many years. when there wasn't much money, but there was just a lot of hard work done to this to develop a plan that will address really excellent training for our police, fire, and first responders. And more importantly, it will also serve as a resiliency center for major issues affecting our region and also the state, particularly the Cascadia event that will happen sometime in the future. So I would say at this point, we're almost on the verge of construction. That will start in a few months, but it really is epitomize the regional cooperation that's occurred on this project, which I don't think I've seen in any other type of form where so many agencies came together for a common purpose and are now seeing that dream, that work come to reality. So I want to thank everyone involved and especially thank the county for donating the land and working with all of us to make sure this comes to fruition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Commissioners. Good morning. So it's been a minute since we've provided an update on the project. It's not really the purpose for today. So I'm going to go through these slides pretty quickly. I think Mayor Fitch hit on all of these components pretty clearly as well. But as a reminder, our current efforts are focused on these priority components that are needed to meet our immediate regional training and coordination needs. So that really includes the site prep, including utility extension and remediation of the legacy environmental conditions. It also includes the emergency vehicle operator course and driver skill pad, which supports law enforcement vehicle operations and fire apparatus training. And then the flex emergency coordination center and administrative building as well, which will provide that classroom and meeting space for day-to-day training and can flex into an emergency coordination center for major incident response for things like Cascadia and major wildfires, and then a fire training tower as well. Next slide. This slide just shows the long-term vision for Core 3. We've really set aside the space and vision to think about and consider meeting future training needs as our region grows and as our public safety needs and training opportunities grow. So this is based on those future needs and also other like facilities who said you're going to grow out of this the minute that you develop it and you really need to make space for that future development. And at the rate that we're growing in Central Oregon, we really wanted to build that into our vision. However, this is pretty long term. So, you know, this is going to be opportunistic. It's going to be as utilization grows, as funding arises, and the partners at the table are committed to working towards that vision together. Next slide. As Ed spoke to earlier, this is really a collaborative effort. And so just want to acknowledge the folks that have really helped move this work forward. Our own Commissioner Devone is pictured in the lower right at our site tour for 21st Street groundbreaking, but we have about 20 different 28 different partners spanning local, state, and federal agencies. And it's a really unique model for something like this, and it's pretty unique to Central Oregon and just really speaks to the level of collaboration that we have involved. On the funding side, we've been able to braid different funding resources across local investments, including the dedication of the land, contributions from the city. The state, we've had multiple partner agencies and legislative investments, and then federal capital specifically supporting the emergency coordination center component. So we've brought in about 35.8 million to date across those resources. With those investments, this is just the current snapshot of our capital development. You'll notice most of these are complete and in progress. So we've completed design and construction on 21st Street. We've completed design for our initial components of Core 3 that we spoke to earlier on that first slide. And we're really looking towards that next phase, which will be fencing the site and developing the Phase 1A components, which will be the emergency vehicle operators course and the driver skill pad. Next one. It's been a long road. So this slide shows our project timeline from that initial viability assessment that was done in 2018 to now. So just acknowledging a lot of work has gone into this since then and it's exciting to see that we're entering into this construction and operational piece over the next year. This graphic shows phase 1A. So again, the emergency vehicle operators course and the driver skill pad. This was the highest priority for local use and need. And it gets us to that operational space. So once it's constructed, folks will be able to immediately utilize it for training services. It does also include a pretty decent portion of the necessary remediation of legacy hazards. So noted in the last slide about 1.1 million of that total remediation will go into this initial phase. And it also includes fencing the entire site along with road infrastructure and again that remediation of contaminated soils. So with that I'm going to pass it over to Christy to talk through the proposed agreements that we're presenting to you all today.

Thank you, Shelby. So commissioners, because the core three project has finished its design for phase one activities, and we're not quite to the point where we're ready to convey the property over to an ORS 190 as outlined in the 2024 IGA. County staff and COIC staff as well as executive council project team have just been talking about paths forward in order for the project to continue on and be able to start construction. So with that we've landed on the idea of a lease. So entering into a lease with COIC since they are the stewards of the project. We've been, we've started a very high level draft. But basically the intent of that document would to allow, would be to allow COIC to start the construction activities. Including the fencing and the other components that Shelby spoke to. And it would also document the legacy conditions of the site and that it would be the project's responsibility to take care of those legacy conditions. And so then as time goes on and the ORS 190 is developed, the intent is still to convey the property over to that entity. But we're just, it's just not quite there yet. So that's really the purpose at a high level of what the lease would look like. So if the board is in support of that today, we return at a later date soon with a with a lease for your approval. The second document just wanted to touch on would be a memorandum of understanding and the purpose of this document would to basically document the current, what we characterize as like the current site conditions around homelessness and the debris and whatnot on the site. And so again talking amongst staff and also I touched on this at the budget committee meetings is the idea would be that potentially if the board is in support the county, mainly my team would take care of sort of the boots on the ground element. So going out there and working with the homeless population to relocate them to the managed camp and also potentially to the green zone. And also work with our contractors to clean up the debris and whatnot. And then COIC, on behalf of the Core 3 Project, would fund these activities. And so at this point, there's a commitment of about $300,000 for that work. So the MOU would come again before you would probably bring the MOU and the lease, at least I'd attempt to do that, to bring those two sort of together at a future board meeting. So with that, I'll pause there and answer any questions you might have.

Christy, that $300,000, what kind of a time frame is that supposed to cover?

Sure that's a great question Commissioner Chang. So basically we've already started sort of pre-noticing folks in the core three footprint which again is about 300 acres. Just letting them know that they're going to have to move at some point and that we you know we will then provide a 60-day notice and a 30-day notice and go through that with 21st street footprint and the managed camp footprint. So giving folks adequate time So the $300,000 would basically, we would start utilizing that immediately. And the goal is to have everything ready for construction no later than mid-September. So that money would be expended by about mid-September.

And is it, you know, as we know, getting areas cleared and then cleaned up is a pretty big process. Is 300,000 sufficient, you know, based on your experience in other areas?

We're pretty confident. And so we do have to work together to figure out exactly what that would look like. We did get a quote from BioSolutions, which is our environmental remediation contractor. And we feel pretty confident about it. But until you sort of get in and get into the nuts and bolts. So if there is an overage, we do have language sort of in this document in the MOU that would, you know, we'd have to figure out how that would be funded. So that would, of course, be probably at your level to make that decision.

Sounds good. Yeah, I was just unclear on whether this was like a cost share type scenario or whether, you know, COIC and Core 3 as the proponents of this project where we're covering our costs. I'm glad to hear that that's the vision.

Thank you. Any additional questions about the lease or the MOU?

You know, just a quick update. How many unhoused people do we think are living in the Core 3 project footprint at this point?

We have roughly about 40 encampments and around 65 people somewhere in those proximity.

And my one other question was the emergency training track. Sorry, I can't remember exactly what it's called. But early on, there were discussions about public-private partnerships and private use. Is that pretty much been set aside at this point, or is that still part of the discussion?

It's been set aside.

Great. Thank you. All the questions I have.

I'll just acknowledge that the parcel, the plat for that property is complete. That was a couple months ago. So now there is a core three property. COIC has been a great partner, the committee, everybody working together on this. This is that transition time. It's like, well, who owns the title to this? Deschutes County does proper, but there's a lot of great efforts in the partnership at the table. COIC's operation to... just steward this whole project along. So the future is a separate entity to transfer the title to, but this is just that transition time.

So my question is about funding. I noticed that you did get 10 million from the state and 25, but we didn't get anything this last year. Actually, funds to date are like 22, almost 23 million, not counting what the county donated the land for 13 million. So what can you actually do with that? What have you actually allocated already with all the roads and everything that have gone in? Shelby, do you have those numbers?

Yeah, yeah, we'll go back a couple of slides, Commissioner. So this slide outlines where those investments are going or have gone to date, particularly on the capital side.

OK, but the land donation, that doesn't pay for anything. So I'm saying if you only have $23 million, Have you spent all $23 million?

We have not spent all $23 million. But by the end of this, when the EVOC is constructed and operational, we will have spent those funds. So between the remediation, the design, 21st Street, and the left turn lane, and associated infrastructure, fencing, and development of that training course, we will be at that total.

OK, so that's like $21 million that you'll be at. If you take off the $13 million. Yeah. You've got it at the top. All right. So you really haven't done any buildings then? You're just doing the track is what is in the plan?

We can maybe help with that. So the bill that was passed and advocated by Representative Evans in a short session this year did designate the Core 3 site as one of the primary relief centers or core centers in the state. There was $20 million allocated in that legislation, but the money was not approved. We anticipate in our discussions with Representative Evans and others that that will come again in the session in 2027. We anticipate that we'll need about $30 million to build the resiliency center. We're confident that's going to happen in the next few years.

Okay, because I remember when they first gave us this presentation years ago, they didn't have it totaled, and it came to a total of, what is it, $99 million at that time? I had to add it three times on my little $15 calculator. But I'm sure now what you really want to end up with is, what, going to cost, what, $150, $160 million or something for everything?

For the priority initial phase investments, it's about $56 million total.

Okay. So we're still looking down the road then? Correct, yeah.

We will be addressing that again next session.

OK, so is Representative Evans going to pick that up, Mayor Fitch?

That's been the gist of our discussions. Obviously, the state has some budgetary constraints, but this is an important project for resiliency across the state and across our region. And it may not be 27, but I think eventually we'll get that $30 million to build a resiliency center.

OK, thank you.

I just want to say I hope in your advocacy you can cover the argument that this is a state investment for a state resource. I very much appreciate the local training functions that will serve our local service districts and our local law enforcement agencies, etc., But the idea that Core 3 will be the refugee center for the state when the Cascadia event happens, that is Central Oregon doing a service for the state of Oregon. You know, many times when I've heard about, you know, legislative allocations for Core 3, it's been like, oh, yeah, we're taking care of Central Oregon. We're giving you money for Core 3. And it's, you know, I hope that legislators can see that we have other capital investment needs in the region. And if they want to invest in Core 3, it's for the state. It's not for us.

That Cascadia argument has been at the core. Mr. DeBone knows that, you know, in the last, I say, five to seven years, the awareness of the relationship between Core 3 and Cascadia has grown in the legislature. The Office of Emergency Management is also strongly behind that. And you're right, this is going to be a state benefit as well as a regional one.

And I was chuckling a little bit when you all mentioned Representative Evans, because I was just watching a hearing the other day where he expressed an interest in changing our transportation funding formula for the state and abandoning 50, 30, 20 for the 30 and 20 for cities and counties. So I hope, you know, next time you see him, you can ask him about that as well and make sure that we're protecting our 30, 20. Thank you.

I'm supportive of proceeding. There's great partnerships, a lot of open communication happening for the agencies at the table. The state's been supportive of this. It is that time where we just need to have the authority at COIC as the entity with the dollars right now to be able to do this construction phase of preparation and completion.

Would you like to make a motion?

So, yeah, have we approved a proposed lease document at this point, I guess?

Isn't it going to come back? Yeah, we'll bring the lease and the MOU back. We just wanted to ask for board support to proceed for staff time to develop those documents.

So, yeah, I mean, there is a recommended motion, but do we need a motion to say we're going to do something in the future?

We need a formal motion if they're going to bring back the document, as long as there's support from a majority of the board.

I'm comfortable moving forward.

Great. And just one additional item commissioners and I didn't say anything to Shelby about this. I apologize. There's going to be some additional right-of-way dedication requirements from the city and related to like the left-hand turn lane and some kind of residual requirements around 21st Street and also some easements and I don't have all the details but I just wanted to plant that seed with you because I'll be bringing those back for your approval as well and I just don't know the timing yet but those will be required I believe before like the left-hand turn lane construction can start so it'll be soon.

Chief Grants has been here so

Yeah, I guess in closing, I just, um, the vision, uh, eight, nine years ago when this started, uh, began as a training center solely, and then has developed into a statewide, uh, benefit for resiliency and emergency management. And I, to address a little bit of the question on a statewide benefit, which is, um, I think proven by all the state partnerships we have and the truly the, the, the funds that have primarily come from the state for development of the site and the ongoing development. Um, This is the time to say thank you. I think the county has, this wouldn't exist without the county's support and dedication of land. That is the biggest piece of this. And that has been, that support has been felt through this process. I especially want to thank Commissioner DeBone for his ongoing chairperson responsibility and co-chair with me a significant amount of time. And we're looking forward to this development, really improving the safety and livability, not only in our community, but as a state benefit as well. Thank you.

final note i did give all three of you the community block party for poster for july 3rd so please come thanks for the invite great america thank you thank you yes thanks for the invitation ed thank you all okay um

On to item number 12, Oregon State University American Rescue Plan Act Grant Agreement Amendment.

Good morning, Commissioners. Laura Skendrick, Management Analyst, and I'll let our guests introduce themselves before I get started.

Hi there, my name is Shannon Lipscomb. I am a professor of human development and family sciences at Oregon State University, Cascades. I'm also an associate dean and for today's agenda item, I have recently taken on leadership of the early childhood internship program that we'll be talking about today.

Hi, everyone. I'm Christine Pollard. That's funny. I just said that. I said my old position because I've been in my new position four weeks now. Welcome.

Congratulations.

Thank you. Interim Chancellor and Dean at OSU Cascades. I'm also a professor in kinesiology, and I've been there since 2011. Thank you.

So commissioners, in April 2022, the Board of Commissioners allocated $750,000 in ARPA funds to Oregon State University for the Little Kids Internship Program, an on-the-job training and education program for future early childhood teachers. OSU has requested a minor language revision to the grant agreement. This is reflected in the amendment that's in your materials for today, document number 2026-434. The requested changes would allow more students to participate and expand the reach of the program and would have no budget impacts, as we have already allocated the ARPA funds for this project. So with that, I will open it up to the board if you have any additional questions.

Could you introduce the vision for this? How is it opening up the program?

Sure. So the two revisions are to expand the possible placement sites beyond the Little Kits location, so to other partner sites throughout Deschutes County, and also to increase flexibility in the number of hours that students are required. So currently they're required to do an average of 20 hours per week, and this would increase that flexibility to a range from 12 hours to 20 hours per week per student. So that provides access for students. And those are actually directly informed by barriers that we have heard from students previously.

Great. Thank you.

Do you have a sense of how many more interns you'll be able to place with this increased flexibility?

So we're in contact right now with four students who are interested in starting either this summer or in the fall in the internship program. I think all of those have had some involvement already in the field at Little Kits or another location. And then I'm also in contact with Central Oregon Community College and they agree that these same flexible revisions would increase access for their students and they anticipate another four or five students would be eligible and eager to participate on this. We have a short timeline for the remaining grant. It expires at the end of the calendar year. So we're eager to recruit Preferably, we think we might be able to get eight students involved across OSU Cascades and COCC.

That's a valuable and important addition to our child care and early learning workforce. So thank you for organizing that. Absolutely.

Yes, thank you for meeting with me the other day. I really appreciated it. I really love the building you have. It's on your campus. It's going to be utilized in the community. I know you're going to do it as soon as you can find the right mix. So anyway, the fact that some of your people that are in the program need just to have that flexibility down to 12 hours, I can understand that. So...

Thanks for your support.

No, thanks for coming back and making those changes.

Yeah. Today's item is not focused on the little kids facility, but you know, since there is a lot of public interest, if you'd like to make a, you know, provide some comments or an update, you know, for the, for the record and for the video recording so that people can catch up if they, if they're interested in catching up, you're welcome to do so.

absolutely um thanks for asking commissioner chang um we are um you know first of all i think i just want to thank you all for supporting the the county support um for this building we it's a purpose-built building and it is I'm confident it's going to be, it is and will continue to be an amazing addition to Deschutes County and expand child care access. I know that it's been really difficult situation as I'm sure you're all aware of where we had this amazing building and we had to shift in providers and we're in the middle of that process right now. We are very committed to finding a provider or two that can come in and establish their child care in that building and that is in really good alignment with OSU and our mission, our vision, and While we're working hard to do this as quickly as possible. So there's a very small gap in a couple of years. We'll look back and see that small gap. But we also want to be really thoughtful. And so we're spending a tremendous amount of time right now as we're making decisions and having conversations. And we want to make sure we do this right. So thank you for asking. And thanks for your support.

Yeah, and do you want to provide people with some sense of when it might, you know, a new provider might be in place and up and running?

Yeah, there's a lot of details related to in these transitions where I'm learning quickly about in the last four weeks. There's licensing, there's, you know, evaluating the spaces, the needs of providers coming in. Our goal is for, our goal is for by the end of the summer, ideally by early fall, is what we're shooting for. But again, we don't want to sacrifice, we don't want to rush it because we know it's critical we get it right.

Thank you. Any further questions?

I'll move approval of document number 2026-434, revising Exhibit A language in the ARPA grant agreement with Oregon State University for the little kids internship program.

I'll second.

Been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Thank you for the update.

Okay. Calling for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Here we go.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming in.

Okay. We're now moving into a number of budget adoption resolutions. Another big day. These items reflect the hard work done by staff throughout the year and by the Budget Committee in May. And I have been thoroughly reviewed and blessed by the Budget Committee. So I believe we'll be able to move through these fairly quickly, but we'll see. uh the first item is a public hearing and consideration of resolution number 2026-025 deschutes county fiscal year 2027 budget adoption cam thanks for joining us thank you uh good morning commissioners cam sparks budget manager for the record

So as you mentioned, the Budget Committee met in May and approved the fiscal year 27 budget. And this is just the next step in the process to hold a public hearing and adopt the budget for the county and the service districts. And so the first resolution is 20-26-025, which adopts the fiscal year 2027 Deschutes County budget in the sum of $713,869,206. which does include additional amounts, which I'll explain in a minute, and also sets the tax rate of $1.2783 per $1,000 of assessed value and appropriates the amount set forth in the resolution. So under Oregon budget law, the board can approve changes to an adopted budget of up to 10% of expenditures within a fund. And Health Services identified a couple of items that were unknown when we cut off the time for the proposed budget. And so because the total impact is less than 10%, Health Services is requesting appropriation authority for these items. So the first item is when the Budget Committee approved that additional $175,000 of general fund transfer that generated 496,648 in matching funds. And so we're going to recognize that revenue and increase appropriations by that amount. Additionally, health services will receive 7,385,813 in state grant revenue, which will be passed through for the construction of the child psychiatric facility. And so we also want to make sure we have appropriations to do that as well.

Any questions or comments before we open the public hearing?

So there's a set of proposed motions attached to the agenda, and there's also one up here on the desk. Are there changes?

No, no changes.

Lots of copies of it. Okay. There is a slight update.

I guess number, if you don't have the updated version, number 15 had the wrong fiscal year. It had 25, 26 instead of 27. Yep. Thank you, Brenda.

Thanks, Cam. Okay. I think we can go ahead and open the public hearing now. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide input on the fiscal year 27 Deschutes County budget? Is there anyone online, Eric? Seeing none, we can close the public hearing and move on to motions.

I move to approve resolution 2026-025 adopting fiscal year 2027 Deschutes County budget in the sum of $713,869,206 imposing and categorizing ad valorem property taxes at the tax rate of $1.2783 per $1,000 of assessed value and appropriating amounts set forth in the resolution.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Further discussion?

I'm always surprised how big that number is, but that does roll up a lot of other agencies, Sun River, Black Butte Ranch, and some of the other stuff we're doing.

Commissioner DeBone, this number is actually just for Deschutes County, because the other service districts have their own budget.

Even the big number, yeah, is amazing.

Reserves, which are not appropriated. So it's not our fully appropriated budget. It's just our total budget, including those unappropriated reserves.

Thank you. And are some of our capital assets basically rolled into this number, or are those separate?

Those are separate. So, Kim, I do have a question. Are we spending $7.4 million on that child psychiatric facility? I mean, I know, didn't we get a couple million from the state, et cetera, and the feds on that building?

I don't know if Cheryl is in the room to address that, but I do know that we will receive that $7.4 million, but it'll just ultimately be passed through for the construction.

OK, so it's coming outside the county?

But it will move through the county budget. Yeah.

Okay.

All right. If there's no further discussion, we can call for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. All right. One down. Next.

Dan is going to help me out, and he's going to come up and present the next three for the Sheriff's Office.

Okay. Yes. So we will now convene as the governing body for the countywide law enforcement district number one service district and have a public hearing and consideration of resolution number 2026-026, the countywide law enforcement district fiscal year 2027 budget adoption.

Good morning all. Dan Kiefer, budget and financial planning analyst. So as you mentioned, this first resolution is 2026-026 to adopt the fiscal year 2027 countywide law enforcement district budget in the sum of $65,527,000 and a tax rate of $1.25 per $1,000 of assessed value. Great.

Are there any thoughts or questions before we go to a public hearing? Seeing none, we can now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide citizen input on the countywide law enforcement district's FY27 budget? Eric, do you see anyone online? Seeing none, we can close the public hearing and move to a motion.

I move to approve the resolution number 2026-026, adopting the fiscal year 2027 countywide law enforcement district budget in the summer, $65,527,000 and imposing and categorized in ad valorem property taxes at the rate of $1.25 per 1,000 of assessed value and appropriating amounts sent forth in the resolution.

And I will second it. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Just to acknowledge these permanent rates, this is our countywide law enforcement district, kind of the foundation of jail operations and other big picture items for all citizens inside and outside the city. And about 25 years ago is when that was passed by the citizens in 2006.

Very good. Calling for the vote, Commissioner Adair. Yes. Commissioner DeBone. Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay, now we will convene as the governing body for the rural law enforcement district number two service district.

And yeah, I'll go ahead and tee up the next one, which is a resolution 2026-027 to adopt the fiscal year 2027 rural law enforcement district budget in the sum of $22,349,000 and a tax rate of $1.55 per $1,000 of assessed value.

Great. Are there any questions or comments before we open the public hearing? Seeing none, we will now open a public hearing on the Rural Law Enforcement District's FY27 budget. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide comment? Eric, do you see anyone online? Seeing none, we can close the public hearing and proceed to a motion.

I move to approve Resolution 2026-027, adopting Fiscal Year 2526, Rural Law 2627. Rural law enforcement district budget in the sum of $22,349,000, imposing and categorizing ad valorem property taxes the rate of $1.55 per $1,000 of assessed value in appropriating amounts set forth in the resolution.

I'll second the motion.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Just another acknowledgement, this is rural law enforcement, so outside of cities that have existing police facilities. And then City of Lapine is the growth opportunity there because they were incorporated after this was put in place. So new development in the city is going to go on the tax rolls for that. So that'll be interesting to see that. Now that water and sewer is complete in the City of Lapine, there may be some growth happening for the residential.

Yep.

Great. Okay. Calling for the vote. Commissioner, sorry, you made the motion, correct?

You did.

Commissioner DeVoe?

Yes.

Commissioner Adair?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. All right. We're still convened as the governing body for the rural law enforcement district number two. And we have another item.

That's correct. Thank you, Commissioner. We'll take a step back from adopting fiscal year 27 and focus on fiscal year 26 for a moment. As discussed, the Sheriff's Office is funded by two districts which collect property taxes. And when they estimate their budget for the coming year, they make a judgment about which taxing districts will provide which amount of funds. And for this year, they're not increasing their operating budget. but we'll have a need to draw more funds from the rural district. And so this resolution draws down some contingency funds that are available to the sheriff's office and then deploys those this year.

Great.

Are there any... So for this item, we don't need a public hearing. Okay. Any discussion before we move to a motion?

So the amount is not in the motion that's been recommended, though should it not be, Kim?

No. For the budget adjustments, you can just approve the budget adjustment. You don't have to state the amount.

So we were notified that it was $1,177,000. OK. Just want to be sure. So I move to approve resolution number 2026-034, transferring appropriations within the FY 2026 Rural Law Enforcement District budget.

And I will second it.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

I'll just acknowledge the resolution number. The resolution has the amount in it, so it's right there.

Yeah. I'll just note, I see our business manager from the Sheriff's Office has joined us today. So thanks for keeping everything in order for us. With that, we can call for the vote. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay. Thank you, Dan. Now we will convene as the governing body for the 911 Service District.

Okay, so this is Resolution 2026-028, which is to adopt the fiscal year 2027 Deschutes County 911 service district budget in the amount of $31,830,775 and set the tax rate of 0.3618 per 1,000 of assessed value.

Great. Before we launch into a public hearing, are there any questions or comments from my fellow commissioners? Seeing none, we can now open a public hearing on the Deschutes County 9-1-1 service district fiscal year 27 budget. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide input? Eric, do you see any hands raised online? Seeing none, we can close the public hearing and proceed to a motion.

Okay, is it my turn again?

Yeah.

I move to approve resolution number 2026-028, adopting the fiscal year 2027 Deschutes County 911 service district budget in the sum of $31,830,775, imposing and categorizing ad valorem property taxes at the tax rate of 36.18 per 1,000 of assessed value and appropriating amounts set forth in the resolution.

Just clarify that the amount is .3618. Oh, sorry.

.3618. Thank you.

Okay.

I will second it.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for the vote. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay. Now we can switch to convening as the governing body for the OSU Extension and for Age Service District.

Okay, next resolution 2026-029 is to adopt the fiscal year 2027 Deschutes County Extension and 4-H Service District budget in the sum of $1,088,737 and set the tax rate of 0.0224 per $1,000 of assessed value. Okay, any questions or comments before we open the public hearing?

So we will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide input on the OSU Extension and 4-H Service District's FY27 budget? Eric, do you see anyone online? Seeing none, we can close the public hearing and proceed to a motion.

At this time, I'll move approval of Resolution 2026-029, adopting the Fiscal Year 27 Deschutes County Extension and 4-H District Budget and the sum of $1,088,737, imposing and categorizing Appalachian property taxes at the tax rate of .0224 per $1,000 of assessed value and appropriating amounts set forth in the resolution.

I'll second the motion.

It's been moved and seconded. A little further discussion. Seeing none, we can move to a vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay. Next, we will convene as the governing body for the Sun River Service District.

Okay, second to the last budget adoption resolution is 2026-030 to adopt the fiscal year 2027 Sun River Service District budget in the amount of $15,899,116 and the tax rate of $3.45 per 1000 of assessed value for operations and 0.4700 per 1000 of assessed value for the local option tax.

Okay. Are there any comments or questions before we open the public hearing? And again, we're serving here as the governing body for the Sun River Service District that has carefully, the district themselves have carefully worked over their budget and presented it to us this year. So with that, we can open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide input on the Sun River Service District's FY27 budget? Eric, is there anyone online? Seeing none, we can close the public hearing and proceed to a motion.

I move to approve resolution number 2026-030, adopting the fiscal year 2027 Sun River Service District budget in the sum of $15,899,916, imposing and categorizing ad valorem property taxes at the tax rate of $3.45 per 1,000 of assessed value for operations and 0.47% per 1,000 of assessed value for local option tax and appropriating amounts set forth in the resolution.

I will second it. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Chair votes yes. Thank you. And last but not least, we will convene as the governing body for the Black Butte Ranch Service District for a couple of items.

So item number 20, before we adopt Black Butte Ranch's budget, we want to make a correction that was an error in the budget week publication. So for budget committee meetings, Oregon local budget law requires that we publish a notice in the paper and on our website. The fiscal year 2027 Blackbeet Ranch budget committee meeting notice was posted on the county's website on April 30th, 2026, within the timeframe that the Oregon local budget law specifies. So that met the website notice requirement. And then a newspaper notice was scheduled to run in the Bend Bulletin on May 6th. for the May 12th meeting, again, which would have been in the timeframe that the budget law specifies, but the meeting notice was erroneously not published. So under the Oregon Department of Revenue Local Budget Manual, failure to publish notice within the required timeframe is a correctable error. So to correct that, we've put together a memo, and then my testimony on behalf of the budget officer serves as the required notice to the governing body so that the error can be acknowledged and corrected. We just want to make sure that we've covered all of our bases here.

We have thoroughly clarified that. Thank you, Kim. Okay. Are there any questions or comments about this informational item before we proceed with the budget?

Just for clarity, was it published in the paper record at some point?

No, it wasn't. There was a whole batch that was sent to the newspaper, and one was missed. And we didn't catch it in time.

Yeah, but we can proceed by acknowledging it here. Correct. Okay, thank you.

Did we send it to the paper, or who sent it to the paper?

Yes, we sent all the notices to the paper.

So everything else was published. Okay, interesting. Okay. Okay.

Ready to move on to item 21?

I'll just acknowledge I've received this.

Thank you.

There you go. It's on the record. Yep. Okay. Let's go ahead to item 21.

so last budget adoption resolution for black butte ranch is resolution 2026-031 to adopt the 2027 black butte service district budget in the amount of 3 million 540 762 and set the tax rate of one dollar point sorry, 1.0499 per 1000 of assessed value for operations and 0.7800 per 1000 of assessed value for the local option tax.

Great. Are there any questions or comments before we open the public hearing? Seeing none, we can now open a public hearing on the Black Butte Ranch Service District Fiscal Year 27 budget. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide input on this item? Is there anyone online, Eric? Seeing none, we can close the public hearing and move to a motion.

It's me. I'll move approval of resolution 2026-031, adopting fiscal year 2027, Black Butte Service District budget in the sum of $3,540,762. imposing and categorizing ad valorem property taxes at the tax rate of $1.0499 per $1,000 of assessed value for operations and .7800 per $1,000 of assessed value for local option tax and appropriating amounts set forth in this resolution.

I'll second the motion.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair?

Yes.

And Chair votes yes. Okay. I think you're off the hook.

I think I have one more.

Oh, sorry. Next.

One more for Cam, but first we need to reconvene as the governing body for Deschutes County. Item number 22, a public hearing and consideration of resolution 2026-033, increasing and transferring appropriations within the fiscal year 26 Deschutes County budget.

OK, so resolution 2026-033 makes routine budget adjustments for fiscal year 26 to account for changes that have occurred since we originally approved the budget. So this resolution includes fund consolidations and closeouts, including a transfer of remaining juvenile justice resources into the future community justice fund. and the closure of the remaining acute care fund activity for health services. It also recognizes additional revenue, including higher than budgeted TLT revenue and unbudgeted certificate of authority revenue, and then provides authority for the related payments and transfers associated with that revenue. Additional adjustments are included for a cost increase to an IT HVAC project. And then additional adjustments for community development reserve transfers and personnel appropriation increases in four different funds which is related mostly to the phase one wage equity project along with some other staffing cost impacts so overall i wasn't going to go through every single one in the amounts but overall this budget adjustment increases the fiscal year 26 appropriations by approximately 6.5 million but i'm happy to answer any specific questions you have about these adjustments

Are there any questions or comments on these adjustments?

You said the total was 6.5?

6.5 million is the amount they were increasing appropriations by. And I can give you the exact amount, which is $6,450,870.

Right. I move to approve resolution number 2026-033, increasing and transferring appropriations within the FY2026 Deschutes County budget. I think we have to hold a public hearing.

We need a public hearing for the transient lodging tax because we're increasing appropriations in that fund by more than 10%, which requires a public hearing. Okay, a public hearing.

Sorry.

Yeah, we can now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide input on these adjustments to the fiscal year 2026 Deschutes County budget? Seeing none, is there anyone online, Eric? We can now close the public hearing and we can proceed to a motion. Commissioner Derrick, go ahead.

Oh, well, the really good news is that the lodging fund was increased by $1,021,000. So that's actually excellent news.

Yes, and that is a little bit of a higher estimate than it'll probably come in, but I always like to just aim high just to make sure that we have enough appropriations to pass through to visit Central Oregon and the transfers to Fair and Expo. But we are still expecting the revenue to come in higher than what we have budgeted, by about $500,000.

Okay, great. So I will make the motion now. I move to approve resolution number 2026-033, increasing and transferring appropriations within the FY2026 Deschutes County budget.

I will second it. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we can proceed to a vote. Commissioner Adair?

Yes.

Commissioner DeBone? Yes. And chair votes yes.

Thank you, commissioners.

Thanks, Kim.

Are you taking a vacation now, Kim? Thank you.

We have one more public hearing, budget-related public hearing, or fiscal-related public hearing, at least.

Hello Commissioners, Laura Skendrick, Management Analyst. So this is an annual process for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to hold a public hearing and consider adoption of the Deschutes County fee schedule for the following fiscal year. Once adopted, the new fee schedule will become effective at the beginning of that new fiscal year on July 1st, 2026. At the May 4th meeting, you reviewed proposed changes for the FY27 fee schedule And departments were available for any questions at that time. And then at the June 10th meeting, we presented some minor revisions. And we are here today with the updated fee schedule and no further proposed changes. We can open that public hearing whenever you're ready, board.

Yeah. Are there any questions or comments before we open a public hearing?

No.

Seeing none, we will now open the public hearing on the FY2027 Deschutes County fee schedule. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide input on the fee schedule and changes for this year? Eric, do you see anyone online? Okay, seeing none, we can close the public hearing and proceed to either discussion or motions.

I will move approval of resolution number 2026-020, adopting the FY2027 Deschutes County fee schedule.

I'll second the motion.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Just acknowledging some of these fee changes are escalators, other ones following state law. And, you know, the package hangs together very well. And thanks for taking time to republish it. And I'm supportive.

Very good. With that, we'll call for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And chair votes yes. Thank you, Laura. All right. Now we can move back to other kinds of action items. Number 24. Item number 24, a temporary limited transfer of use of county-owned property adjacent to Southeast 21st Street in Redmond from Lessee Mountain View Community Development to Jericho Road and authorization to Mountain View Community Development to contract with Jericho Road for temporary use of the property for homeless outreach services.

Thank you, Commissioner Chang. Again, for the record, Christy Bollinger, Deschutes County Property Management. So just to give a little bit of background, Commissioners, as you know, the city has decided to close the Desert Rise site known as the Gravel Pit in East Redmond. And historically, that's where Jericho Road and other community service providers provide services to the homeless community on Fridays and Sundays. So with the closure of that land... Yarrow Road has requested county authorization to relocate that sort of meeting area over to county-owned property, which is currently leased to Mountain View Community Development. So in consulting with Camden County Council, she felt it would be best to go through this process to transfer basically limited use of the property from Mountain View Community Development to Jericho Road. And then once, and this again is just a temporary kind of get by process. And then once Mountain View Community Development starts working towards their mobilization for construction of their permanent supportive housing project, then a different arrangement would have to be looked at. So with that, I'm happy to pause and answer any questions you may have.

open it up for questions or discussion. I also see that both Jericho Road and Mountain View Community Development are represented in the audience today. And I actually would love to ask Jericho Road a question if that works for everyone.

Oh, Christy, when is Mountain View, when is that construction going to start?

Rick is here, so if you'd like, we could have him come up and provide that information.

Welcome. Would you like to introduce yourselves for the record?

Eleanor Bessonette, Jericho Road.

Rick Russell from Mountain View Community Development.

Thank you for joining us. And we'll just note, also, Commissioner-elect Rick Russell, thanks for joining us today. Eleanor, my question was, this is a decent distance away from Desert Rise. That has functioned as an important service provision location for Jericho Road and for the unhoused population. Do you think people will be able to adjust fairly easily to this other location? And is it a decent location, you know, in relation to the population that you are seeking to serve?

Right. We actually drove around. There were five of us that drove out and through all of that land, which I'm sure many of you have been out on. And what we need and what we were looking for is we need a fairly accessible and flat spot. Mosaic Medical brings their big van out. There are other vans and providers that come out. And so we really could find... nothing that was accessible and the right terrain. And so that's why we settled here. Yes, there. And as you probably know, there's a lot of dirt roads that wind through there and paths and trails. And so we think that it will would work for people to get there.

My other question was, so we just signed a lease agreement for a service hub location. Does providing these outreach services at this location right now, is it helpful in moving people towards thinking of the service hub location as a place to go for services?

I think it will be the, these services have all come out of the service hub when it's up and going. So, you know, and it's right near theirs. So once we can raise the money, that's where the services would be operated out of. Okay.

Good to know. Thank you. Commissioner Adair, did you want to ask questions about the permanent supportive housing project?

Right. I wanted to know when construction was going to be starting.

I think winter. We right now are working with- What if we have winter? Yeah, yes, yes. The months where it should be cold and snowy. Right now we're finishing pinnacle architectures and finishing the design of the services building, engineering work is being completed. We have to get to permits by December. And then of course, kind of weather permitting, that's when construction would begin. So we anticipate just in our-

conversations with jericho that that site would be usable you know through the rest of this calendar year and then after that it's it's unclear yeah okay we're looking at this map here this is the the starred area on the corner of the mountain view community development property right just a small footprint on the mountain view property yeah and this is where we that's my understanding and we were all out there last friday week and a half ago

Yep, okay.

Yep. And I believe that that area was used as kind of an equipment staging area when the managed camp was being built. And so they essentially kind of cleared some brush and flattened an area there. And so I can see why it makes sense for this service.

Just, yeah, so the scenario is there'll be some... resources available Friday mornings at that starred area, generally. It'll be on Mountain View property lease area. And then in the future, Jericho Road will be down the road with more of a permanent supportive center. And then there won't be services available at the end of Antler now. And that's, is that Friday, two days from now, or are you thinking?

It's whenever we can get this agreement settled, the city's letting us, giving us access to stay at Desert Rise until we can get a new location approved.

And then it'll be truly being able to have people get to that new location, which is a rocky, bumpy, dirty road. Yeah.

Bit of a rise there, so.

I mean, I'm supportive of consolidating this. You know, the core three property we talked about earlier today is going to be on the other side of the road there also. And then there's a green zone that we're working on too. So basically getting a route between that location and the green zone is probably, it's going to happen if we do it officially or unofficially, it'll be happening.

How far away is the green zone from this location?

If you give me a minute I can do a quick query.

And Chair, as Christy pulls up the Green Zone, I was going to mention this earlier or later under other items, but one of the access and the Green Zone remain big topics of discussion with staff and all the partner organizations. And yesterday, Christy and I met with Redmond Fire Chief Herrera, Deputy Chief Miller about the resource issues, the demands on their services, how it's straining their resources. their resources and the need to improve access in East Redmond for them. So we've committed to continuing to partner with them, to look for solutions, to work with all the organizations to address those matters. So this wasn't necessarily intended for any topic of discussion this morning during this topic or the core three, but they're all related, all linked. And I just wanted to highlight the importance of our continued, especially at the staff level, coordination with Redmond Fire.

Commissioner Chang, to answer your questions, just a little over a half a mile from that point up to the kind of south end, I guess, of the green zone.

Good to know. Yeah. As you all know, there's a lot of things in motion in this region of East Redmond, and it's definitely helpful to think about how they interact, how the moving parts interact. Yeah. I can only imagine that if we improve, you know, roads and access to the green zone area and we are encouraging people to leave lots of other places that, you know, the population will increase in that area. So it's interesting, you know, interesting discussion with Chief Herrera.

Well, my opinion is the green zone is way too big. And the fact that we're meeting with Redmond Fire and they have been incredibly impacted by all the issues that we have out there, I would really like people to be instructed to move to a much smaller spot so that it's easier to get to them closer to the structures that are already planned, such as the managed camp. Not actually that's core three, so we've got to do something in a green zone that is as close as possible. So that they just, they think, oh, we're going to go to the managed camp because that's where we're going to get help and that's where things are going to improve. Or they can go to Oasis Village if they've got room. Do you know if there's any room at Oasis right now, Eleanor?

I think we have 23 or 24 in there now. So there might be space for one or two, but we're pretty full. Okay. One or two?

Good. Last I heard, there was still a waiting list.

Well, they all go through coordinated entry, and it's that whole process. So that's how they're placed there.

Okay. So if you've got a couple spots. Yeah.

And I mean, I, you know, on the on the point about the footprint of these things and and basically density of people in a setting like the match camp, we can grade the land, you know, build sites and, you know. put people into a fairly compact space while still allowing them, you know, a decent amount of living space. But in places like the green zone or the temporary safe stay area, I mean, if we haven't done any grading or anything like that, it's, you know, not all the land is, you know, immediately usable. So You know, for us, if we're interested in having more people be in a more compact space and, you know, with closer access to services and emergency services, then one of the things we could think about is that opportunity to expand the managed camp opportunity. I would love to operate the managed camp with 36 sites and see how it works for a little while first. But there is a tremendous amount of need in that East Redmond area for just that kind of a shelter opportunity. So something for us to think about.

I was just going to ask, Christy, so how many dog runs did we figure out? Was it only like six or seven? You know, because when I'm out there, I see people with a dog and I see dogs that you do not want the dogs together. You know, we've got the Pitbull and the German Shepherd and You know, if our managed camp is really going to be successful. Have you researched that? I know Linda Klein has those numbers. Yeah.

Commissioner Dare, I haven't asked Linda the specific number, but I believe you're right. I believe it's like five, six, seven right now. I know.

It's not enough. I can tell you that. And if we were going to have a successful arrangement with people and their pets, and I believe they're only allowed one dog, I think that was one of the rules. So anyway, the sooner we can get people moving to really help Redmond Fire. I mean, everyone's got to do what we can this summer. You know, things are so dry. I mean, we saw what happened yesterday.

So our service is going to be at the end of Antler on Friday or here?

They're going to be on Antler until we give notice that we have permission and have a signed MOU with Mountain View. And we need to give them at least a week.

A couple weeks.

And announce at Jericho Table, hey, this is where we're going to be. So Antler is where they are until we go through that process. Okay. But I know the city would like us to move along.

Well, and we were talking about this two weeks ago. It was mentioned that maybe we'll get out there in two weeks, which was this Friday. I know.

It's been a process. And Commissioner Adair, I was going to mention that with the managed camp, for the housing kind of continuum, it's just been natural from managed camp into OASIS and then on. And I think our last number was 30 that we've placed or been able to place in stable, safe housing. From OASIS. From OASIS. Okay. And so it doesn't take care of the whole problem. But it's a good step along the way. So just wanted to update you on that. Again, a thanks for your support for Oasis Village.

No, that's positive to hear. I just met someone the other day who was helping his brother who had lost his way, and they had to get the new idea, and he was doing everything as a brother to his sibling. And it's not always easy, but... It's important. So thank you.

Yeah, and 30 graduated by OASIS, and close to 100 graduated from safe parking sites, and the Veterans Village, all of these, the tens of people that are that are supported to permanent housing from each of these locations add up to the hundreds that we need to be affecting. And I believe that the The point in time count numbers that show a 19% decrease this year are a product of all of these transitional housing and shelter facilities and supportive services that are being provided in our community. So thank you all so much for your work. Is there a further discussion or are we ready for a motion on this item?

I would hope you're ready for a motion.

OK.

So Commissioner Devone isn't going to make it? No. Okay, so move to authorize staff to provide written consent for a temporary limited transfer of use of county-owned property adjacent to Southeast 21st Street in Redmond from Lecee Mountain View Community Development to Jericho Road and further authorize Mountain View Community Development to contract with Jericho Road for temporary use of the property for homeless outreach services.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

I was just being polite by not making that motion. I thought you were ready to go.

Oh, thank you.

And then also, I mean, yeah, in the big picture, as I say, I would have done this differently a year and two years ago. I came in with that concept of a long-term visitor area, personal responsibility, six-month permit, because we keep taking bites out of this. And the small bites feel good. Oh, we're helping that one person. Yes, we're helping that one person. But we're still just leaving this open-ended... unsanctioned long-term camping, and we're all dealing with fire starts and, you know, human dignity issues and drugs. And I mean, it's just a messy, messy situation. And I'm not saying it in a mean or cruel way, but we should have got a little bit stronger on the front end here because we just keep rolling and rolling. So that's where we're at.

I will mention again my openness to actually investigate what a long-term visitor area actually is and how it's operated and what it costs and explore pursuing that if there is interest on the board. Okay, so it's been moved and seconded. Anything else? Seeing none, Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner Dubon? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Item number 25, Lapine Basin All Lands Partnership Charter. our Community Wildfire Protection Supervisor, Lauren Street. Thanks for joining us.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Thank you for having me this morning. For the record, my name is Lauren Street, the Community Wildfire Protection Supervisor. And this morning, our Natural Resources Program is seeking approval of document number 2026-0442 for Deschutes County to join the Lapine Basin All Lands Partnership in support of wildfire preparedness coordination. For background, the Lapine Basin All Lands Partnership was formed to enhance wildfire resilience in South Deschutes County and Northern Klamath County through strategic collaboration among community-based organizations, federal partners, state partners, our tribal partners, and local agencies. The partnership aims to maximize resources, align mitigation strategies, and improve wildfire resilience across the Lapine Basin. Deschutes County has been invited to join the partnership and joining the partnership will not commit the county to expend any funds or resources beyond meaningful engagement in the partnership through meetings and other activities to advance the aims of the partnership and decision making processes. So I will pause there for any questions.

Lauren, I'll just, you know, before I ask a couple questions, I'll just introduce the topic by saying a month or two ago, I sat on a grant review committee for the state's federal forest restoration program grants to do collaboratives. And there was an application from the All Lands Partnership in that pool. And that, you know, I'm very supportive of these all lands groups and, you know, any effort efforts to coordinate across jurisdictional boundaries. I was concerned about the application in that particular grant pool because those funds are really directed towards You know, towards advancing the restoration work on federal lands. And, you know, I track federal land work pretty closely within Deschutes County. And I was not aware that, you know, the... uh i wasn't aware of this group being engaged in in that work uh uh in a significant way you know for example um the the forest restoration collaborative uh the deschutes collaborative was we were just out on a project called moda that's just um you know a stone throw away from from the pine over by wickiup reservoir a couple of weeks before um and i didn't hear anything about the the all lands partnership at that time so I was curious about the geographic scope of this all-lands partnership. How broad of an area are they trying to work? And their focus on, I know it's an all-lands partnership, but how much of the work is really aimed at supporting more fuels reduction on private lands versus on federal lands?

Yeah, great question. Thank you for that. It is a newer partnership. I would say that they've been convening for just over a year now. This is a very new charter that should be attached in the packet there. And as far as their geographic area, I know that this document references a map and that map will hopefully come online June 23rd. That's going to specifically identify the area that's covered. But based on discussions thus far and partnership meetings, it would go from Three Rivers area, Sun River area all the way down to Crescent. And it would cross federal onto private and encompass all of that. And I think the emphasis of this partnership is to encompass both federal and private and cross boundary work. And I think that that would be the main focus is, you know, plugging projects into the framework that the partnership is building to prioritize the cross boundary work and where that work has the most benefit for both private and federal lands.

Okay. And how does, so this is a relatively new group. There's a lot of relationships and partnership work that's been done, you know, in that area already. You know, we think, I think about like two chiefs projects in the past. Is this, is this sort of, I assume that they're tied, right? That there's, you know, a lot of the same players are involved. But is, you know, is this kind of like the follow on? Or is it additional to those those past efforts?

Yeah, I would say it's in addition to I think a lot of these conversations around the kind of birth of this partnership came from the most recent fires in Lapine. And seeing that some of these past projects have been more siloed, whether it be, you know, emphasis on only private, or emphasis on federal or state lands. And so the hope through this partnership is to bring down some of those silos and to go at these mitigation efforts, at the education and outreach efforts, not in a siloed way. So to do it more, you know, in collaboration with all agencies and all partners involved.

That sounds good. you know immediately immediately adjacent to lapine or in the lapine vicinity you know there has been a lot of a lot of fuels reduction on federal lands in the last 15 years you know i've tracked you know the the the blm issued one of the first stewardship contracts in you know in the state of oregon um you know to do work around the pine And the Forest Service has also been implementing a lot of projects. I was actually very disappointed seeing recent fires in the Lapine area that... people there are a lot of people who didn't actually know that that a lot of federal work had already been done um and how important it was you know um you know a recent darlene fire you know hits the hits treated areas they drop the fire to the ground they can contain it um the roslyn road fire a few years ago same story So I hope that as part of this partnership, there can be more awareness raised about the work that's already been done on the federal lands. And you can focus in on that, you know, to the extent that the partnership is interested in the federal end of the equation, there can be a focus on what hasn't been treated yet, but also an appreciation of, you know, the extensive work that's been done already.

Yeah, thank you for that. On that, I think that one of the through lines of the meetings that I've been involved in with the partnership is the storytelling aspect of success stories from the Lapine area, the hard work that the community is doing there, the city, our local partners that are putting this work in, and again, emphasizing that cross-boundary work and prioritizing those areas, saying, hey, there's a lot of work that's going on in the Lapine area. How can we pair that work up to do that cross-boundary work and then tell those stories of the work that not only CISNs are doing, but also federal partners, state partners, and other partners.

Great. Thank you.

So Newberry Regional Partnership is mentioned in here. So I'll abstain. My wife's involved with that. This is an exciting moment and things are happening here. But she does have a contract for some resources and consulting time that she does on this. Well, for Newberry Regional Partnership was indirectly this. Okay.

Ms. Chardaire, any questions?

It seems interesting that the scope, the geographic scope is said it's an appendix map, but you're telling it's not available for a couple, till the 23rd or something?

Yeah, it's a very new charter. And so the map will be decided within the partnership on June 23rd. OK.

But you described, you know, from three rivers to Crescent. How wide does that go?

That's a great question, and that's a part of the mapping processes that the partnership is working through. They're working through mapping treatments that have done from 20 years until present, and then also mapping future projects. So it encompasses a pretty wide area onto federal lands, looking at what is planned, what's been done, and where we can pair that up with private property or state land. and other partnering organizations to do that cross-boundary work. So do you have any idea how many acres we're talking about? I don't have that information, but I'm happy to get that number for you.

Once it's done. Yeah. On June 23rd. Okay. Well, it's great that everyone's working together. I mean, didn't we have like four Darlene fires or something? Like, yeah, we've had a bunch of them. It's just like we've had nine fires from Jefferson County that have come into Deschutes County, nine. And I'm still working on getting the right equipment for the rangeland fire protection so that they can actually be effective immediately. Okay.

So Commissioner DeBone is going to be abstaining on this item. Are you?

Okay. So move approval of document number 2026-0442 to join the Lapine Basin All Lands Partnership in support of wildfire preparedness coordination.

I will second. If there's no further discussion, we can move to a vote. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone, do you want to abstain? And chair votes yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lauren. And I'm glad we will be part of this partnership because, you know, the perspective and resources and tools that Deschutes County brings can hopefully be very helpful to the group overall.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Lauren.

Item number 26, we're almost exactly on schedule. Groundwater protection funds opportunities for investment.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Chang and members of the Commission. I'm Peter Gutowski, the Community Development Director, and I'll turn to my colleagues for introductions, and then I can provide an overview for those that may be watching online or in person. So I'll go to my left, and then we'll go to my right.

Wastewater Manager.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Andrew Spreadborough with Neighbor Impact.

Good morning. John Cox, Lending Director, Neighbor Impact.

And we might have, Eric, do we have Scott Cooper participating? Okay. Scott was, there was a chance that their executive, Neighbor Impact's executive director was going to be participating. Okay, understood. Well, what this item pertains to a respectful request from Neighbor Impact to the Board of County Commissioners to receive some future funding as it pertains to future land sales from the Newberry neighborhood in Lapine. And for those that are unfamiliar with the Newberry neighborhood, the area that's undeveloped, that property is owned by Deschutes County. Decades ago, the property was acquired by Deschutes County through an act of Congress. for the explicit purpose of assisting the community with groundwater protection as it pertains to the vulnerability of nitrate loading in Southern Deschutes County. In the memorandum, and I won't go into great lengths unless the commissioners would like me to, the memorandum describes the Newberry neighborhood, its history. There's footnotes in the memorandum that allows one to uh access our uh community development department's annual groundwater protection report and that report like an accordion opens up and one can learn about the newberry neighbor neighborhood its history um and and so i i just wanted to make make that that reference to anybody who who wants to learn more about the project what the community development department has done with its partners like neighbor impact like the department of environmental quality like the U.S. Geological Survey, in terms of really investing resources to understand the circumstances in Southern Deschutes County and where these resources have been allocated over time. With that, the memorandum allows the board, the reader, to understand the two funds that are in place. Community Development Department, I'll call it, within our structure, our budget. We have Fund 296, which pertains to groundwater partnership funds that can be allocated and have been made allocated to help people. in Southern Deschutes County, for example, with retrofits and whatnot in the past, low-interest loans. We also have Fund 297... That was 296. Fund 297 pertains to the Newberry neighborhood, so that's a... a fund explicitly when land does sale what does sell or there's a a an area just to this uh in the newberry neighborhood that's under different ownership there's obligations by developers and uh ultimately when when uh houses are being constructed they pay into uh uh this fund uh which then gets transferred into the groundwater partnership fund for allocation so Anyway, the second point I wanted to make is just there's an understanding and context for the board, for the reader, to understand how these two funds work and operate, how funds have been used in the past. And then lastly, with this opportunity, and I'll certainly, with the board's consent, turn it over to Andrew and Ben. John, for their respectful request. It was an opportunity to provide other options or possibilities for groundwater protection investments and worked with Todd on that. So just... It was important, I think, for the reader, for the board to understand if and when the land does sell in the Newberry neighborhood, that there are lots of possibilities that ultimately the CDD would be looking for board direction. Um, so wanted to just provide that for context as the board considers this respectful request. So that's all I have just again, just to kind of set the table. I'm happy to answer questions. Todd is as his introduction notice on-site wastewater manager and has been. intimately involved in the groundwater protection program for decades and has a wealth of experience that complements what Neighbor Impact has undertaken for Deschutes County. So with that, Mr. Kuhn, I'll turn it back over to you and other commissioners for any specific questions of me, but to open this conversation up per the respectful request by Neighbor Impact.

Are there questions or comments about this specific proposal from Neighbor Impact or this memo outlining various ways that we have been and could be investing funds from Newberry Neighborhood Land Sales?

So I've got one other idea and it's a big idea here. If there was ever an opportunity to put an incentive for a neighborhood area, you know, footprint of a neighborhood to have roads that were built by county standards to be adopted for maintenance, that may be the trigger that could take a whole group of people and say, oh yep, water, sewer and roads and all of a sudden you make a beautiful, beautiful recreational rural properties. with that road infrastructure. Not community development's domain, but we don't adopt roads. And when we did adopt roads, some neighborhoods leaned into spending the money to build that road and then it really just changes the whole dynamic of the area. Instead of a dusty, dirty road that may or may not even be maintained, some of these neighborhoods are outside of road districts. As I say, that's two or three steps in the future, obviously ODOT and 50-30-20 and all kinds of reasons why that's a big step, but that would be an opportunity because the incentive would be if you put in water, if you put in sewer, and you maintain your roads, all of a sudden you have a nice little area. And there's a few of those out there. You know, as I say, the River Meadows is one of the places I think about, and OWW2 has that, and it just changes the whole character. So, just sharing, big idea.

Yeah, I think it's an interesting idea. You know, in the past, when we've been approached by special road district residents or private road owners about coming into the county system, I think the county has indicated openness to doing that, but that they would have to. upgrade their roads to county standards first.

It was put in place 20-something years ago. 2006. Yeah, we don't allow that.

I'm pretty sure that there's a pathway to do that. But again, the key would be that they would need to, you know, for the first... The first consideration would be, you know, are you willing to pay to bring your road to county standards first? And I think that that's a significant hurdle for a lot of areas.

But, I mean, as I say, the economy, the interest, the cost of construction, nothing aligns for that right now. But having that as an incentive out there maybe – Maybe an opportunity, you know, if there is an aggregate supply and asphalt costs at the delivery rates were a little bit lower and, you know, just all kinds of things would need to fall into place. But I mean, my understanding is we have a moratorium on adopting roads for maintenance. But as I say, that would be a discussion, a policy discussion.

And, you know, I definitely recognize or appreciate that tying, you know, if you're going to dig up a neighborhood, doing two pieces of infrastructure instead of one makes a lot of sense. And that Certainly, if you offered people paved roads, that would be a real incentive for them to accept the sewer.

And it's just maintenance of roads that were paid for by the residents. So that's the tricky part there, too. Local Improvement District has been the way it's done in the past, a vote of a neighborhood, putting debt on the tax bill. So as I say, tax bills are high, too. Yeah. the probability of this sure doesn't feel like it's now, but maybe in the future things could align differently where it makes sense.

Well, I had some suggestions that might be interim steps before we look at things like that. And I just want to start the discussion by saying that the septic replacement program that Neighbor Impact has been providing in our community is a really important service. We are accomplishing some conversions of standard septic systems or failing septic systems in shallow groundwater to better systems that accomplish some of our water quality goal. But also, in a lot of cases, I believe that the population served by this program that this is an affordable housing preservation program as well. If there's people who are not going to be able to upgrade their septic system and they're going to lose their home, and that's a modest home within our housing stock, that is something that's worth investing in. For reasons beyond water quality concerns. So recognize the value of this program. At the same time, I want to express concern about... The amount of progress that we have made on septic conversions in this swath between Sun River and La Pine, we've known for decades that there were 6,000 standard septic systems in shallow groundwater that were putting substantial amounts of nitrates in the ground. With the package of education, technical assistance, and incentives that we have had so far, we have accomplished 5% of the conversions that need to happen for us to really put a dent in the nitrate loading that's happening in South County. While I want to recognize the value of the Neighbor Impact Septic Replacement Program, I also want to ask whether there are opportunities for us to take this potentially a couple million dollars that come out of these land sales and invest them in more strategic ways to leverage additional resources The memo actually covers historic state and federal investments that have been made into this area, into septic conversions, into exploration of other options. I do think with the passage of Senate Bill 1154 and the opportunities to much more easily move sewer expansions or new sewer systems through the land use planning system that a little bit of money invested there could lead us to a lot more federal or state funding in order to actually build sewer systems. So I want us to be mindful about using the, uh, the funds that we have strategically, uh, to leverage more, more money later, because we do not, you know, from Newberry neighborhood land sales, um, we are not generating enough that we can, um, pay for the direct implementation of septic conversions for the number of homes that are needed to really make a difference. And so we need those additional resources. And the best way I can think of to tap into external resources would be to do certain kinds of analysis and planning now for bigger projects that we could attract state and federal investment into. So that all leads me back to the request to say that I definitely do not want to abandon the Neighbor Impact Program. I would be hesitant to put $450,000 or to commit $450,000 out of a potential $2.5 million. um right now uh but i'm certainly open to some level of investment that you know ensures that the program has enough resources to to meet the the demand or the need um that is uh that's coming in you know the door right now i mean at this moment in time neighbor impact doesn't even have the resources to cover one request so um i i do think that there's something that needs to be done about that But those are just my kind of opening comments.

Well, and I'd be supportive of just making a commitment of X, whatever that is, and then just bringing it back instead of future commitments, too. Because, yeah, we don't know what the future is going to bring. I really do support the fact that, yeah, let's get a few of these. There's... Andrew, welcome. Haven't seen you in a while. How many systems are in the queue right now? A few?

Yeah, a few. Well, again, thank you for the time on the agenda here. And I just want to note, we're appreciative that you're considering this request. We understand the complexity, the scope of this. of the the need in the community and the many options you have and so i just want to start by saying we're we're pleased to be considered we we support the county and what direction you take on this we're happy this is very scalable work um you know we can scale up or scale down based on available funding so very appreciative so In terms of where we are right now, just generally, maybe just a little bit about our program, just to make sure folks are fully aware. So we operate a lending program we have for many years, and we really have three goals. One is we help create new homeowners through down payment assistance loans. We also help address health and safety issues in owner-occupied, low, moderate income households. These are critical safety issues, accessibility, roofs, things like that. And also, as Commissioner Chang pointed out, we really like to think about this program as a tool to protect our current supply of affordable housing. It's much less expensive to invest in current housing than create new units. And so really, when we think from a community perspective, we really emphasize that we're trying to address affordable housing through protecting what's in place. We have about a $6.4 million portfolio or capital under control. We have 250 loans out currently outstanding. Our production numbers vary depending on availability of funding. We approve anywhere from 20 to 25 loans per year across those buckets of funding. What is unique about our program, I think, is that we're entirely grant or contract funded. We don't borrow money to lend it. And so we've got a very low cost of funds. And really the importance of this is that We could take higher risks. We don't owe a bank for the funds that we're lending. We don't owe another institution any repayment. So that allows us, like the septic program, to take on higher risk loans, knowing that if they default, you know, we lose that capital, but we don't owe it back to somebody else. It also ensures that every dollar that comes back in capital repayment is relent. So these funds revolve as well. And also it allows us to defer the loans. And that's maybe the most important piece of this in that we structure certainly the septic program and also our housing preservation rehab general program as a deferred loan program. So these are typically folks that have, again, lower, low to moderate income. They're not considered bankable, meaning they can't go to a financial institution and get a bank to cover their cost. And so often they can't afford a regular monthly payment on their debt. That's why they come to us. And so we defer the loan, which means that they're not required to make any payments until the property sells or otherwise exchanges hands or is no longer owner occupied. And that provides, again, our ability to serve a segment of the population that really doesn't have other options. In terms of the septic program itself, you know, currently we have a 63-ish person wait list or interest list. That was when I last reviewed it a couple days ago. On that list, we have 13 projects that have a septic component, seven of which are in South Deschutes County and the remainder is other kind of regional locations. We also have eight projects that have a well component, a dry well, and seven of those are in South Deschutes County. And over the past five years, when we look at our data, about a quarter of our projects have had a septic component that we funded. Our current situation in terms of overall funding, Commissioner Chen, you noted that we don't have funds available. The balance in the septic fund is $18,000, which is not enough to fund a full septic replacement. Our primary rehab program is also nearly committed. It's obligated. We don't have loans approved on all of the funds, but we have applications in process. We're operating in a very constrained environment, and we're very limited in how many projects we can move forward. So I guess to summarize, our demand for all types of projects remains high. We are seeing quite a few septic and well projects. I think as we look at our data over the last five plus years, a majority of the projects funded have had either a well and or a septic component. It's becoming our kind of most common request coming through our doors. We're also seeing higher costs for everything. Like everything else, all construction costs, including septic and well costs are rising dramatically. And so just kind of maintaining our current funding, we're losing ground against the demand or the need. So when our executive director, Scott Cooper, made this request, we had an internal discussion first. We know we're kind of capped out. We also know that there aren't other septic funding sources currently available. COIC had operated a septic program They no longer have any funding. Craft 3 in the past has had some DEQ funds for doing septic projects. Their programs close currently until they can get some new funding from DEQ. So we just recognize not only is Neighbor Impact constrained on our ability to fund these projects, but also there are not a lot of other resources out there for this segment of the population. So a long answer to your question, Commissioner DeBone, but we are still seeing a demand. We've got, again, a pipeline right now of seven projects, and that's with no outreach at all. This is just organic folks coming in the door expressing interest.

So it hadn't really been nine years since you got any funding from us. You guys waited nine years?

We've had a couple conversations, and I noted there were some septic programs out there in the past. And so I think the idea was, while there are septic resources available to support the community, that's great. Let's push the demand in that direction. But as I noted, now there isn't. Now we don't have resources. And so that's kind of what prompted us to come to you today.

Okay, so and you did help 18 property owners. with this program according to the memo. So that was like about $13,000 or something a person, the owner? Yeah. For the $240,000 that we gave, did you have other funds at that time?

We've done other septic projects. Yeah, this program, we refer to it as the non-conforming program, meaning this is really intended as it was set up back in 2010 before any of us were here. It was set up to kind of serve the folks that didn't qualify for neighboring. Anywhere else. Yeah, even our own standard preservation program. We've done 18 total projects, as you noted. Most of those were pre-2020. We've done three since 2020, and those were just as the funds have revolved. We've built up a balance.

People sold, and then the funds came back in, and then you could reloan them out, is what you're saying. So they don't have to pay until the property actually sells, correct? Isn't that how you do it? But you do charge them interest?

There is an interest component, yes.

How much do you charge them in interest?

It varies. Our lending committee reviews our interest rates quarterly. Right now we're at six and a quarter percent. It's a simple interest.

Do they get a fixed interest in when they sign the document though? So whatever it is at that moment in time.

Wow.

Wow.

So I'm interested in stepping into this first $150,000 installment, if we have the resources for that, and then leave the rest pending. So that's kind of where Commissioner Chang started on this. Because I understand the need, absolutely. There's going to be some interesting push and pull on the resources as time goes on here. But I really like the idea of stepping in for what we can do right now and then going from there.

150,000 sounds like a reasonable and appropriate number to me. It does raise the question of what the timing and flow rate of those funds is going to be. We have not sold any of these quadrants in the Newberry neighborhood yet. And so, but we do have in, you know, in the Groundwater Partnership Fund and the Newberry Neighborhood Fund, we have some funds available. So I, you know, conceivably, we could make a probably smaller than $150,000 contribution immediately to address demand and then consider more later. But... I do want to ask staff what other demands there are on the Groundwater Partnership Fund dollars and the Newberry Neighborhood Fund dollars right now. I know that we do rebates, and I have some questions about that as well, but can you tell us what the other demands on those two funds are in the immediate future?

Well, currently the $38,420 that's in the 296 is allocated for rebates, essentially, which is $3,750 per rebate. When someone repairs, upgrades their septic system to a nitrogen reducing system, they can apply for, the owner can apply for that rebate.

So it's allocated for rebates, but it's not committed to specific, obligated to specific rebates yet.

No, we wait until we get an application. Okay. And over time, we've done 163 remates. So that's since 2010 when we created the program. It's also when we started working with Neighbor Impact and created the non-conforming loan program. And that was really intended because people couldn't get conventional loans. And so... $38,000 allocated for the rebates, that's really all we can set it up for. If we get 10 more rebates, that's going to exceed. We won't have any money left. It's trickling in as the land develops there in Lapine, in that one neighborhood where they're paying into the Fund 297. Fund 297 has... a little bit more money and we've transferred money over in the past to fund 296 to keep the, to keep these programs going also to provide some additional funds in the past neighbor impact. Hmm.

I have a question for Neighbor Impact. Okay, so you said there were seven septic on your waiting list, 63 in South County. And in a perfect world, what would it take to fund those seven? What are you guys looking at right now?

$300,000.

That would take $200,000 to do those seven? Okay.

Roughly $30,000 now. They've doubled. They've tripled since I started.

Okay.

Out of control.

Right. And is that the system that's, what is it, 70%, 70, 80% effective?

Yes.

Okay. And we still don't have the system that's 95% effective, right, Todd?

No, but there's the new FujiClean system is every bit as good based on data from New York. And that one's going to be going to start installing those next month.

Next month?

Oh, that's... We're going to host a... We're going to have a party?

Yeah.

There's going to be a local distributor providing those systems.

They're getting training for installation. Regulators are coming from all over the state. So hopefully that will reduce some of the price because you'll have some competition. You'll have two systems that get 80. Some of the data is basically about 84% for that system now. That's based on published data from Suffolk County, New York. And this is a Japanese engineered system, design system. That's the company.

Okay. Excellent news.

Finally. Finally.

Finally.

Another system. We're ready for this question.

Well, well, you do I would ask him because Todd was prepped and it came to him. Well, it's on my sticky the Fuji Fuji system. So it is Todd Todd and his team and the coordination that they've had with you to help get us to this point. Thank goodness. How long is this taken?

No.

They have to establish all these components. They have to have a distributor. They have to have trained service providers. They have to have training for installers. And regulators have to be trained on all the components that have to go into these systems, highly engineered systems that are approved. All the components, we have to look at all those components. They have to use specific components so that they stay within warranty. They're approved through NSF.

How long is their warranty?

Two years.

Okay.

Minimum.

Minimum. Okay. Great. All right. Honestly, if there was some way we could fund $200,000 to take care of those seven people on your list, I would feel better about it if there's any way we can do that somewhere. I mean, the good news was, I don't know if you were here earlier, but we actually did get, we received more lodging tax than we projected this last fiscal year, which ends in a couple weeks. So, and we definitely need to keep those homes in a better position than what they are. Struggling, you know, septic not working. I hope it's not the same people that their well isn't working too. I mean, can you imagine? Or maybe it's some of the time it's the same people that, yeah, it's a challenging time.

I appreciate the sentiment. Right at the moment, we don't have $200,000 in Fund 297. But if these are costing roughly $30,000 apiece and you have almost $19,000 in the bank, if we allocated over $100,000 right now, And, you know, it indicated interest in investing a little more when quadrants in the Newberry neighborhood actually do complete sale, then, you know, that... could get you going at least for a little while, I think, you know, so that would be my proposal. And, you know, within that thought, you know, so get you to 120,000, that covers four systems. And within that thought, I mean, I do, you know... if the opportunity cost right the trade-off is then then we can't we have we don't have 100 000 in fund 297 to put into the groundwater partnership you know to into rebates um i think you know i i think that a rebate program is not really accelerating conversions. So that's one of the reasons I'm kind of, you know, not wanting to save more money for the rebate program. And you all can help me understand if I'm incorrect about that. But I mean, It seems like people come in now when they need to replace their system and they get a rebate, that our rebate is not big enough to encourage people whose system is not at the end of its life to do it sooner. Is that accurate, Todd?

I would say that's probably true. It's always nice. It's kind of like a discount. And we've been discussing on and off for years about how we would like to increase the rebate, but we haven't had the funding to do so. And where that originally came from was in 2008, what the price was. So we created the rebate program on January 6th, 2010. So that's, That was why it was established at $3,750. That was about 50% of the cost of the treatment unit pod wholesale, not blowers, not control panels, not pumps, but that unit. So to look at it today, that cost would be somewhere like $5,500 to $6,000 for a rebate, and that's where that would be more of it. I think that's the number.

based on that that math that would might be an incentive it's like a percent discount on your system yeah no and i i mean um i'm really glad that uh when a resident system is at end of life we can help soften the blow a little bit um with a rebate but i mean again if if we've known for 20 years that there's 6,000 systems that really need to be upgraded and we've only achieved 5%, we need to do, we need to, somehow we need to go faster than just serving people who are, who have to do it anyway, whose system is already at end of life. And I don't, I don't know how we make the leap from what we're doing right now to that future place. But again, I'm concerned that if we sell quadrants in Newbury neighborhood and then we just turn it all around into direct investments in implementation of septic upgrades that our money is not going to go very far. Yeah, Todd.

I just want to make sure that we're getting all the numbers correct. So we talk about repairs, we talk about upgrades. A lot of times the systems do need to be repaired, but people are doing a process that's replacing a dwelling, doing an addition. adding something. And so when we do that, we require the upgrade. That counts as an upgrade to that system, but it might not be a repair by definition. So I just want to let you know that the total number of parcels with ATT systems in South Chutes County is 1,343. that's out of a total of 6,997 developed parcels. So there's 5,650 that still need to be done, but that's a little bit better than 5%. So I just want to make sure that we've made some progress. Thank you, Todd. Make sure that I've been, you know, doing the best we can.

And, you know, one thing that we haven't talked about today, because we're talking about, you know, I'm focused on the septic systems, the old septic systems, but, you know, we've done a great job of... new construction, requiring ATT systems. We've done a great job within the city of Lapine of hooking up lots of people to sewer. But 5,650 is not that much better than 6,000, which is what we were looking at 20 years ago. Doing a good job of ensuring that new construction is putting in better systems is not the same as fixing the problem that we've been aware of for many years. And I'm not criticizing... I'm not criticizing county staff when I say that. It is all of our responsibilities to advance this work. And I'm just expressing a desire for us to do more and better and faster in the future.

It is 20%, Todd. So thank you for those clarifying numbers. Instead of 5%, we've actually done 20%.

No, we have not done 20%.

We just said it was 1,343 out of the 6,000.

A huge number of those are new construction. New construction, including advanced treatment systems, is not the same as fixing the 6,000 systems we have been aware of for 20 years. 6,000 minus 5,650 is a little over 300. 300 into 6,000 is about 5%.

Well, I love your numbers a lot more, Todd.

I'm using his numbers, too. I'm just parsing the numbers. I'm just parsing the numbers so that we understand that we have not made much progress on the problems that we knew about before.

Well, it is really fascinating to see that years ago we gave you $60,000 a year, but that was so long ago that it, you know.

Well, we're very appreciative of the first allocations.

Right. I know. Well, you know that, yeah. And yeah, and I'm really glad you sent the letter. And how do we find more funding for you? That doesn't come through your department, Peter. What do you think? Found any extra millions sitting in your bank accounts that haven't been audited?

I will say, great question. Of course, we always are looking at partnerships. Andrew and I spent a lot of time, Todd was involved, John may have been involved as well, tangentially in that $20 million EPA Community Change Grant that we applied for. We were unsuccessful, but of course we will, you know, Todd's in regular coordination with the Department of Environmental Quality. So any opportunity that allows us to tell our story, which I think is, it's imperfect, as the commission has noted, but there's tremendous partnerships in the region and accountability that I think allows us, will hopefully allow us to continue to demonstrate to outside funding sources that We have the contributing funds, the knowledgeable staff, the partnerships, the multiplier effects that come with investments of this type in this part of our county. So we are always at periscope depth, I think, looking for opportunities to tell our story and leverage additional funding.

Todd, you're not going to respond? Anytime soon, no? Say no, Patty. Okay. We really appreciate where you are. And now not only do I want to talk about the Burnbot, that fabulous piece of equipment, but I'll talk about the Fiji system, right? Those are my latest two things that we need to have more of. So, yeah, let's hope that it can come in and people can put it in their houses. And, you know, there is some competition there, so the prices are a little more competitive. Because if the efficiency is at 84%, I think that's great.

And let's keep putting effort into figuring out how to fund that work from other places. I really appreciated CDD's pursuit of that EPA grant last year that might have been funded if those funds, if that program had not been rescinded by the Trump administration, for example.

That's right. Our debt is $40 trillion, I believe, so.

That's right, but we're trying to figure out how to fund these needs in our community. And protecting the waters of our community and our nation is actually something that is worth the federal government investing in.

Yes.

Okay, so... So my proposal would be to put $100,000 forward right now out of Fund 297 and then consider an additional allocation later on after some quadrants of the Newberry neighborhood are sold. Is there any interest in moving forward with that?

I mean, if that's an appropriate number, I guess that's a number that you were hearing. Are there any other thoughts on a number that could be available right now? Or is it just up?

I mean, it's just gospel on and out. It's really a policy decision on behalf of the board. The only thing that, and the board is aware of this, the chair noted it, we haven't sold a quadrant yet.

No.

Yeah. And so it seems very promising. We haven't been in this position for quite some time. So the board is well aware that, you know, attractions are confirmed when... The land actually sells. And so there's several months involved. So the amount that you believe is appropriate to leverage neighbor impacts existing funds is entirely your decision. We just note that until that property sells, we have very limited funds in 296 and 297.

It's either, you know, whenever or October 31st that we will know that decision. So maybe, honestly, we should come back if it does close before that date or, you know, we'll know by November 1st, won't we?

Knock on wood.

Yeah. Yes, knock on wood. Where's real wood at?

I'm supportive of $100,000 then. That's the number.

For this $100,000 that we do have available in Fund 297, basically our options right now are more rebates or investments in these non-conforming loans. Hearing that the rebates are basically supporting people who have to replace their septic system anyway, I would lean towards doing a couple more non-conforming loans because those are people who are in a more challenging situation. Again, this is preserving existing affordable housing in our community.

So if we do the non-conforming loan, do they come in for a rebate? Or do we just commit to four rebates or whatever this is?

So, yes, they can apply for a rebate because the way that that order is written from 2010 and a later order from the Board of County Commissioners allocated that rebate go directly to Neighbor Impact to pay down that principal of that nonconforming loan. So it goes back into the Neighbor Impact.

So it's already part of the calculation of about $30,000. Yeah. Okay.

And I support either taking action or discussing increasing that rebate too. I mean, the conclusion is a higher rebate may trigger a little bit more activity. You know, if you go from 10 rebates available to six rebates available, hopefully there's activity. That's the conclusion I would come to.

Didn't you say, Todd, it should be about $5,500, something like that?

5,500 to 6,000. And so the speed with which prices seem to be going up currently, you know, if we'd had $18,000, you know, 10 years ago, that would have paid for... Yeah, a bunch of activity, yeah. So, you know, I was thinking 5,500 to 6,000, and that's just an estimate based on what I've been told about the cost of the ATT pods.

I mean, could you... What kind of an analysis or argument could you put together for us that would actually suggest to us that a larger rebate will accelerate conversions, upgrades of systems? I mean, again, I like the idea of softening the blow to people who already have to upgrade their septics, already have to replace their septic system. That is a nice thing to do. But these lands were given to us, the Newberry neighborhood, to address the groundwater quality problems we have in South County. And

you know if someone is is going to replace the septic system anyway um it doesn't seem like it this accelerates accelerates that goal very much so very district involved as it gets developed out does it involve connecting with existing neighborhoods so what what i'm getting at is is that The septics that we replace, Neighbor Impact also does the city sewer hookup and decommission of septics. And we do that in Bend and all around the tri-county. So I'm just curious to know if, because with all new construction, there wouldn't really be a need to kind of pivot this program to city hookup type of thing?

The Newberry neighborhood is new construction within the city of Lapine. And so it's all being built on sewer as it's being developed.

And is there existing homes is what I'm asking.

The city's sewer project just replaced all systems. So that's a different scenario. City of Bend has been stepping out where they're requiring those connections, but that's not going to be the scenario in Southern Deschutes. Yeah. So a couple thoughts. We've got a request by the groundwater committee from 15 years ago that said we'd like to have a Goal 11 exception and well testing every 10 years. The Goal 11 exception got stopped by the state land use system. 1154 works through a process that could provide that. But we don't have, like the report from DEQ or partnership from DEQ information, showing the well testing 10 years later. So Commissioner Chang you're going down a path of you know certainty like you know that what's going on citizens are standing by saying well we asked for some things which we didn't get and there so there's there's like a little catch in there you know it's like we need to have some community meetings talk about it get people on the same page explain why somebody studied the water and you know there's new people there so I'm just pointing out, there's going to be a lot of questions on why we're moving forward and who's leading, who's following, and what's going on here.

I'm prepared for it.

So a community meeting or something is going to be a way to proceed or a report of something?

The whole idea of exploring a groundwater quality area of concern sets us up to have that community engagement, sets us up to get all the agencies around the table, ask the hard questions about what data we have, what data we need. So, yeah, I think that that is a great opportunity.

Well, so then, I mean, for this board, three-person board with the experience we have, do we want to do something before the end of the year or not? So that would kind of put direction to that.

I requested that I go into the CDD work plan, and we can either lean into it as a board now, or I can just wait until January. Up to you.

Oh, I'd love to do it. I mean, I'm not opposed to that at all. So, I mean, now we're just, that's a big project that we're talking about here. So, I mean, it's interesting. It's like we're on the same page, but we're conflicting at the same time sometimes. The way you're speaking to me and how I'm, you know, looking out for the community and how you're looking out for the community. It's amazing how we interact.

Well, we have had substantial opportunity to work on this issue for many years. And in my opinion, it has done.

You're critiquing the way I've done it. That's fine. I understand what you're saying.

All I'm saying is that we need to do more, better, faster.

Within the system of the state land use system and... Yeah. I understand.

Yeah. We create opportunities for ourselves. And then we pursue those opportunities. So if we're going to do that, do we probably need a motion?

I would assume that community development would bring an agreement back or...

Yeah, certainly, we would certainly formalize that I think it would be helpful just maybe receive direction to in coordination with legal counsel in coordination with neighbor impact, you know, kind of perfect this direction from the board. And then, yeah, so yeah, I think we get both.

Yeah, I think as long as we have clear direction from a majority of the commissioners for staff, then they can bring back a formal item for future consideration.

Okay, and honestly, if the sale miraculously does go through, we should talk about this again in November.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, and the commission's been speaking about this, that has always been our intent. So there's lots of possibilities, as noted in the memo, others as well. And so, yes, as soon as that one or both quadrants sell, CDD recognizes the importance of coming back to the Board of County Commissioners very quickly to to provide information, you know, as much as we can so that the board can begin directing how they would like these funds, you know, allocated in a strategic way. So we will certainly do that and hope to be in such a position in the month of November. And if it happened to close sooner, we would certainly schedule that earlier. So thank you for that. recognition. And it's something that, oh my gosh, Todd, Sherry Pinner, our senior management analyst, we've kind of been in these positions in previous kind of negotiations that haven't gotten to this point. And we've always found ourselves at this stage being cautiously optimistic, but this is very encouraging and we hope to be back in front of this board later this year.

Great.

Would there be support for talking about a rebate change before that? I'm not real motivated, but I'm just thinking it was discussed today.

It's certainly at the board's pleasure. My own opinion is that the timing would be more appropriate when we have significant funds through the land sale and Todd at that time can give the board a better estimate of the methodology that was used in the past, how it would apply and late 2026. Any other observations that the board has to the extent the board is interested in exploring Senate Bill 1154? It sounds like that's a conversation with DEQ, you know, respectfully. So To directly to your question, Commissioner Moan, I would offer, let the land sale kind of go forward. In November. And then when that does occur, we'll be in an, collectively, we'll be in an extraordinary position for the first time to really talk about how to maximize these funds in a way that meets the board's objectives. Yep.

Great.

One. Yeah, thank you. I think we're kind of closed out the discussion we need to have one additional thought that I had as I was reading through the staff memo. This idea of the domestic water supply district feasibility study. I think that's an interesting idea. I want us to, right alongside that idea, take a look at what it would cost to just provide people with filters, under-sink filters for their... Commissioner, when you say that, who's drinking bad water?

Who needs a filter? I mean, I have not met him. I've been in office this whole time. I've never had somebody come to me and say, Commissioner, I'm worried about my water at my house. I need a filter.

I'm not going to out anybody right now because... So you're saying there's people that are going... Acknowledging that, yeah, or that have shared information with me that maybe you have not heard.

I mean, if it's secondhand information, that's fine, but I... Well, it's not secondhand to me. So you're getting different information than I am.

I guess so. I mean, that's interesting. People are so comfortable coming to me saying they have- You've heard it from your own friends that if a given property is connected with contaminated water, that will sink that property's value dramatically, immediately. But as I say, for you to- That is a reason why people would not want to- And I don't have that information, very upsetting to me.

I mean, we got to get down to this. You can't have different information than I do.

Well, I'll encourage people to speak with you as well. We have in this document a a potential action to explore a domestic water supply district feasibility study all i'm saying is that as part of that or right alongside that we should do an analysis of what it would cost to provide substantial numbers of people with under sink filters in their kitchen and bathroom instead because if that's a thousand bucks a pop Instead of trying to run pipe dig a community well and operate a community water system across large areas of South County. I am guessing that the under sink water filter is going to be substantially cheaper. Those are the key constraints. We don't want people drinking contaminated water. We don't want people cooking with contaminated water. If they flush their toilet with contaminated water, if they water their lawn with contaminated water, that's just fine. The additional nitrates, if they want to put that on their lawn, it'll probably just help their grass grow. But if we need to ensure that people have clean drinking water, there may be more surgical, cheaper ways to do that than building entire new community water systems. I'm putting that out there, and I'd like that kind of added or amended to this idea of exploring a domestic water supply district. Thank you.

Anything else?

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just want to thank you all for the investment. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Andrew. And thanks, John.

Okay, so at this time, item number 27, final decision for a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use winery in the multiple use agricultural zone, Lava Terrace Cellars at 20520 Bowerly Lane. I am recusing myself from this item, so I will leave it to the vice chair to run the rest of the meetings. And we don't have executive session today, do we?

Yes.

Okay.

You can either do it this morning after this item, or we could do it after the executive session this afternoon.

We have a start time at 1 o'clock.

Yeah, after the other one. So it would be up to the board's discretion what the time that you would like to.

So there's an executive session starting at 1?

At 1 o'clock.

That's on our calendar.

And it's going to be two topics, I see. Okay. So we'll convene at 1 o'clock for executive sessions and conclude this meeting after this item?

And it's supposed to be with an area commissioner on transportation at the same time, but all figures. Okay.

Okay.

Okay. Nathaniel, good to see you.

Good morning, commissioners.

For the record, Nathaniel Miller, associate planner with the planning division. The item we are here to discuss this morning is the final decision from the board for a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use to establish a winery in the multiple use agricultural zone. This is the Lava Terrace sellers proposal by the property owners and applicants, Duane and Dena Barker. The property is located at 20520 Bowery Lane, which is just north of the city of Bend. A brief recap of the latest proceedings. The board held the last public hearing for the modification of application on February 25th and approved the winery during deliberations on March 25th. During deliberations, the board made decisions on 10 issue areas and affirmed the hearings officer approval for the applications. According to the board's direction, the draft was prepared by the applicant's legal representation and then edited and reviewed by planning staff and Deschutes County Legal Counsel. The 10 issue areas are outlined in the decision along with other relevant findings that have changed since the hearings officer decision. Staff scheduled this time with the board to know if the commissioners would like to make any edits, additional findings, or to move to sign the decision. So with that, I will turn it over to the board for any questions or direction.

So, yeah, thank you very much. Commissioner Adair, it's up to you and I at this time. You know, this package has been reviewed a few times. I want to thank Community Development and the Legal Department to do that. So as I say, I'm not bringing anything in for proposed edits at this time. Any thoughts, Commissioner Adair?

I did have a question. I think they've been in this process for like five years, maybe, if I remember correctly. And I did notice that the... Point number seven was the property owner shall initiate the use for the proposed development within two years of the date of this decision becomes final. Oh, or they can obtain approval out of an extension. So they could get an extension. If something wasn't quite right, they could still get an extension. Okay. I was worried about that. I thought, you know, they've already invested five years of their lives. And if in the next two years, they couldn't put it all together, but okay. I, for some reason, didn't read that word on extension. So that makes me feel better. And I believe there's 25 conditions of approval that we have now.

There are a number of them. Yes.

Yes. I added them up twice just to make sure that we, yes, 25 in the project itself is going to be less than 1,500, what is it, cases of wines?

Annually, yes. Correct.

Annual cases of wine. Right. So it looks like it has everything that we had asked for.

Great. As I say, I'm kind of in the same spot. We've been through this a lot. Thank you very much for the final work product here. And I'm supportive. I didn't know if we were going to open something up or not here.

Okay.

Okay. Staff hasn't included a recommended motion there in the agenda request and staff report.

Okay. So move approval of final decision for files number 247-22-000464-CU and then 466-SP. comma, 018A, comma, 25-734-MA.

And I will second it. Any other discussion? Seeing none, calling for the vote. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And vice chair will vote yes.

OK. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. I'll go ahead and coordinate with Brenda for signatures, and we'll get it in the mail.

OK.

There we go. At this time, other items? Anything else for this meeting?

No.

Nothing else? Okay. So we are going to go to an executive session at 1 o'clock. Scheduled for 1 o'clock. And we won't reconvene after to open up and close the meeting or anything?

We will. We'll recess and then we'll come back and we'll do the session statement.

So we're going to go to a recess. It'll be a lunch recess. Reconvene at 1 o'clock for executive sessions. And you're going to read the item now?

I'll read it when we come back.

At 1 o'clock. At 1 o'clock. Okay, got it. Okay. So recess, and we'll reconvene at 1. Thank you. Hey, welcome back after our lunch recess. This is our Board of Commissioners meeting for June 17th, 2026 afternoon at one o'clock. We're going to executive session.

The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will now convene an executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660. The specific authorization for this executive session is ORS 192.660 subsection 2D and H, which allows the board to meet in order to discuss labor negotiations and anticipated or pending litigation. Designated staff and the media are allowed to remain during the executive session. However, the media may only report that the board met in executive session and the identified basis for meeting in executive session. Recording devices are not permitted. No final decisions will be made. And at the conclusion, we will open the doors and invite the audience back to the meeting.

Hey, we'll be back after this. We are out of executive session. Anything else for this board? Well, please proceed as discussed. So then anything else for this board meeting? Seeing none, meeting adjourned.