Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us for today's June 22nd, 2026 Board of County Commissioners meeting. We will now call the meeting to order. The first item on our agenda is reviewing and approving the agenda. Are there any requested changes, additions, subtractions? Any approval?

Second.

We've been seconded. Any further discussion? Commissioner Gabon? Yes. Commissioner Adair?

Yes.

And Chair votes yes. All right. Next on our agenda is citizen input. Is there anyone in the room today who would like to provide public input? If you're online and you'd like to provide a public comment today, please raise your hand. Okay, that's being done. Move on to our commissioner announcement. Are there any commissioner announcements?

Nope, I'll just look back on my schedule uh, while there's anything to update, but nothing, no announcements.

Uh, I'll just mention that, uh, last, last Wednesday, last, last Wednesday, the 17th, the Oregon Water Resources Department did a, um, rulemaking open house, uh, just south of Redmond, and, um, I went primarily because I was interested in what they were going to say about exempt wells, but there is a whole lot of discussion about irrigation water and things like mulches in the system, use of ponds, and things like that. There is potentially a rulemaking coming out from the Oregon Water Resource Department in that will sort of define existing water law and processes. If anyone's interested.

And I'd just like to mention that my neighbors have two million gallon ponds and they're actually used in fire suppression. Amazing. I saw them sucking up how much they can gather and dump out of fire in such an amazingly short period of time. So anyway, I do think we need some ponds.

There was definitely a lot of discussion about the important roles that these quote-unquote bulges in the system play in just trying to figure out how to make the rules line up with the actual beneficial uses of water.

Speaking to Commissioner Stemmelink in Jefferson County last week, there's public safety power shutoffs and shutoffs in the electrical system in these summer times. but he was talking about the irrigation dynamic. So sometimes if the power goes off, the water's flowing into a pond and then the pump is putting it out in the field and then the pump turns off, the pond will overflow and then they're losing track of where the water's flowing and it's overflowing in the wrong places. So interesting dynamic. And as I say, just a generic concept that he was explaining to me. I hadn't really seen that myself, but when the power goes off, it can really, mess up the flow of where the water is supposed to go.

Considerations. Okay. If there's no other commissioner announcements, we can move on to our regular agenda. Item number one is appointment for the Deschutes County Welfare Committee vacant position.

Good afternoon, Commissioner O'Shea. How are you supposed to do? He's the commissioner's manager. So back in May, Sarah Lee Lawrence term expired and she served as a supporter of well conservation and co-existence with WALT and she was unable to serve another term. So we opened up the vacancy publicly notice and had opened for several weeks and received 13 applicants. The WALT committee reviewed all 13 applicants and narrowed it down to five. And then last week on the 16th, each commissioner met with, along with a WALT committee member, met with each of the five applicants for 15 minutes each. Everyone ranked a candidate, and out of that, we had one top candidate. Her name is Kelly Inez. Just for quick reference, I know you met with a lot of people in a short period of time. She's the retired veterinarian and still on call veterinarian at Sun River, specifically for horses. So she received the lowest score, which is the top score, to join the wolf committee, and so I'm just looking for approval to offer her that position.

Well, I support that. We had five fabulous candidates to interview, and Kelly was definitely at the top of the list for me.

She wasn't our top candidate, but it's fine.

Yeah, I said top of the list, not top. But I thought she was excellent, and I think when Jen tallied up the scores, it was maybe One point difference?

One point between the top two and then four points between the top three.

So it was pretty close. I do hope that there were so many great people who were interested in getting involved with this topic in our community. I hope that there are places where people can plug in even if they were not selected to be on the committee. I was joking with one or two of them that we needed to form a subcommittee to focus on, specifically on organizing volunteer efforts, because there's just a lot of volunteer power in our community that could be put towards the, particularly the prevention of wolf livestock depredations in the first world war.

Moshe, last name again? that's right but then so i'll move kelly and as it's the appointment for the wolf company welcome in sure i'll second it's moved in second um any further discussion i do want to thank each person for getting involved it was nice talking to him and then the committee itself for uh preparing that down for us so thank you and welcome to kelly and i'll send out the email i know hr does but i'll send a personal email out to the other four as well just

Thank them and let them know we'll keep them in the loop for other opportunities.

And actually, looking at the list, I went on a state ag tour on Thursday. Deschutes County, I believe, is like number 24 in the state. They're way down the list as far as cattle goes. And the county I'm from, Morrill County, has the most of the state. I was shocked when I was telling my family. They have 190,000 cattle that are considered for Morrill County, number one in the state. And that's where the wolves are going to town. Let's just keep killing cows.

Okay, calling for the vote. Mr. Newell? Yes.

Mr. Adair?

Yes.

And Chair Bucks, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Actually, Optimist has more. Berrien County has more.

Item number two, Rural Recycling Program Implementation.

As per request, I wanted to have a meeting to clarify anything with the rollout of the rural recycling cans. We're delivered last week and there's been some feedback and I'm sure you guys have heard some feedback and we've heard feedback and John has heard feedback that I'm Depp Merwin, Department of Solid Waste Director, John Allen, Republic Services. So what I did is just on the staff report that you guys had, just kind of summarize really what the rollout was. And cards went out last week, right? Still slowly rolling out, but we're almost done, yeah. Okay. And there's about 7,800 cards that are going out. And... You know, what we're hearing, at least from our side, I'm not sure I'll let John speak through public services. Question. Yes. Are the cards made of recycled plastic? Partially, yes. Partially recycled plastic. By law, they actually, I believe, 30%. 30%. There we go. So it's mostly the problems we're hearing is older folks that, you know, the size of the card is quite large and And then also fixed income on that. So it's kind of usually two parts on that. And there are, you know, they can ask for a 25% discount on the $6, which knocks it down to $4.50. And then, you know, a walk-up service could be waived as well. And that, you know, I think typically a walk-up service is, what is that?

I think it's now $21 a month. So in both,

Both holders agreed to waive walk-up services and hardship cases on that. We've had at the county 27 complaints come in via email and also phone. And we respond to all the emails, kind of really try to educate them on what the options are. And I will say, what is important is that they do have a bigger part, that chance to reduce, which came out in the meeting in February, reduce your cart size can offset that cost. Now, granted, if you have a small cart, that doesn't help them, but there were one or two that I spoke to personally, and they didn't think that, right? And so they learned how to recycle and were actually fairly appreciative of it by the end of the conversation.

But then how many people have actually canceled? Because people are telling me they're furious and they're counseling. And honestly, when I got the cart, I thought, this is ridiculous. My husband actually does the recycling now after so many years. And he goes, oh, my God, we're going to throw it all in this one thing. And when's it ever going to get sorted? Because he takes it over and, you know, you actually sort it in the bins every year. So I really was, yeah, people are not happy. And these people keep telling me, you know, I'm so angry. I'm counseling completely. So what's going to be the net result?

Well, we've had zero cancellations since we've expanded the service, and since the carts have been rolling out, we've had a lot of complaints of people not wanting to pay the universal fee that's attached to it. We've had only a handful of people reach out about the size of the carts, being unable to bring it down their driveway. In those instances, we've told them that we can waive that if they show signs of disability or inability to take the cart down the driveway.

So, yeah, I've had probably half a dozen very specific people contact me, and, you know, I've seen probably most of the stuff that you're referring to, 27 or whatever. And I've also seen some pretty positive comments and heard some positive feedback also. So it's kind of all over the board from what I'm seeing right now. It looks like these opportunities for maybe, you know, a slight fee reduction and offered a big card, if they really want to do it, because you could cancel the card too. Have you had anybody call and say, please take the card?

We've had a couple people call and say, please take the cart away. And so we have a separate list of those people that we're going to go and recover those carts, but we have had to explain to them that they're still being charged the universal rate.

Well, but they can get their 25% discount, so they only have to pay $4.50. Yeah. What a savings.

And then what we're going to be doing also is after we roll it out, we've done a whole education on what their pickup schedules are going to be, And we actually have a sorting facility in Salem that goes through all the commingled recycling and separates it into the different categories.

And it's interesting, some of the feedback I've heard is, you know, people who do all their recycling separately, that they have their trash picked up. Well, you don't necessarily have to do that, minus glass, that is curbside. And that's an opportunity not to have to go to, you know, the transfer station and utilize the service.

A couple questions. So, John, you just mentioned that the material goes to Salem to be sorted. Correct.

We're not currently sorting it here. No, we're not. There's no facility that sorts it here. So what we do is we have the Moore building over at our vent facility that will bail it out. And the commando that public services picks up gets sent off to the Salem Recycling Center where the bales are opened up and then they're sorted depending on item type. And then Waste Connections have their bales separately go to their facility to be sorted.

There's been, there's some explorations, some look at doing a MRF here in, here in Cochise County.

if there was a MRF, would that stuff get all sorted out here and then sent out in, you know, like bundles?

Or would, you know, where does the MRF fit in in relation to this system? So it would centralize sorting to Central Oregon. So right now everything's transloaded out. So it will get mailed, but then those fails probably get broken open. I think most facilities that would get shipped to you want it loose and not veiled. And so that facility would potentially have that. And that's part of the conversion projects that we're looking at.

Association of Oregon Counties, we had our monthly meetings in the Transportation and Community Development Committee. They had the recycling modernization update, and they're talking about the producer responsibilities and how there are some grants. And so there's companies or people out there trying to figure out how to you know, with a little bit of financial support, how to really create that stream of recycle reuse. So I know that's happening in the state of Oregon also.

It's been great, too. We've been able to pull out, like, soft plastics out of the system, which really come up with sorting machines over in Salem. We have a Pro Depot in our parking lot, and there's one in our landfill that takes out those common contaminants in the recycling stream. out of the system, and we're also doing intense education and partnership with the Environmental Center and Solid Waste on how to reduce contamination in our recycling stream.

I think the $6 probably would be quite a bit more, maybe $9, $10, if we didn't have some of that funding from RMA. That would reduce that cost to have to recycle.

Jeff, thanks for laying out all

laying out the history of how we came to this decision and what our opportunities are to assist customers who are experiencing issues. As I was reading this history, I was reminded of a couple things. Number one, we started down this path looking at, at first, a subscription service, because there were a lot of people who asked, a lot of people in the rural collection areas who asked for this service.

Looked at doing a subscription, figured out we could do that, and got to this universal idea.

And one of the hopeful benefits of moving forward with that is that we are going to be able to get closer to our waste diversion goals. And I was just curious if you have any kind of estimates of, you know, how much material moving forward with this extension of universe, you know, curbside recycling collection is going to help us towards our goals.

That's a good question. I mean, we're 7,800 households. How they utilize it, you know, we don't know yet. We're just hearing the negative part of it. And it's, you know, a small number compared to the overall people that have received cards. I don't, and I can, Tim or Susan might know the average card recycle weight. I don't. Yeah, about 65 pounds per card. So 65 pounds per card every two weeks.

I mean, that's That sounds like something I could do. It sounds like an out of dose to give you. Yeah.

But I think that's really excessive. I recycle and we don't have 65 pounds every two weeks. I can tell you that. That's way over the top. So, and that's what a lot of people I've talked to said, you know, I'm very careful. I recycle, but it's nothing, nothing that's going to fill that huge trash can.

So, yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing how this all rolls out next couple weeks, next couple cycles. So, basically, is there going to be a route for picking this up every week, but it's just every other week in each person's house?

Yeah, so we have river routes planned. We have A and B routes. We've already sent out the calendars to lots of customers, as well as postcard reminders and emails. And we have a voice blast that's going to be going out to customers here shortly on the next day or two.

I haven't got that. We only got the postcard saying that I had to take it. You know, this little teeny postcard.

We had about 71% open rate on our emails, and these voice calls might be entered into the system in the next day or two, so they should be going out shorter.

And then I'll use this memo and send this back to some folks who would say we discussed it today, and if you still want to follow up, please give me a call. So thank you very much for this memo. We'll be able to use it like that.

And we're going to Our staff does each one. So, Susan, so if you want to forward those on to give people additional information.

And always use me as a resource. It is my wheelhouse.

Great. I don't have any other questions. I think the memo is done. Thanks for joining us here today.

Okay.

Thanks, guys. I appreciate the update.

It's always good to know what to tell people and who to point them to when we receive concerns. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Item number three, work session on fair and objective housing text amendments, site plan, conditional uses, and additional sections. Good afternoon, Commissioners.

For the record, Kyle Collins, Senior Planner. Give me a second here. I have my screen. Hopefully, we can do this. Of course, if you have questions, always stop me. So I thought it might be helpful to run through just some background on this, because it's been a while since we've gone through one of these packages. This is hopefully the last of our clear objective housing amendments. since we started this process about two years ago, roughly. And this one is, as the Chair pointed out, it covers a variety of topics like land conditions. It's kind of the hodgepodge, everything that was left over from the previous three, what we're calling the hodgepodge that we passed along before. So this is really the cleanup efforts for everything in place. So just a work session here today for all the hearing that's gonna come before you Wednesday. On the screen here, you can see a website where you can see all of the materials that have been submitted as part of this project so far. So if anybody listening at home, if you're interested, feel free to follow that link. You should find the event link in the project. So just as a reminder, again, some background. In 2017, the state legislature passed a series of bills primarily with the goal of encouraging an expansion of this broad announcing across the entire state of Oregon. It surely started with the city's first, and through a series of actions that happened at the state level, that was expanded out to unincorporated areas across the state, including Michigan County. That all coincided with the passage of certain bills that modified the Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 197-307, the following days, specifically implements local governments to only apply what are described as clear and objective standards, additions, procedures, for anything that regulates the development of housing through what they describe as needed housing. They have a very specific definition in state statutes, which I won't go into there, but we can talk about it at a later level. But generally, any adopted standards at the local government level can have the effect of discouraging housing through unreasonable costs or delay. Clear and objective standards in general, what does that actually mean? It's simply a term for a consistent interpretation of the rule. So if you grabbed any curtain across anywhere in the state and showed them these rules, they should come up with the same conclusion, what the application could actually be. Fair and objective standards, again, they're only intended to be applied to housing species. Everything that we're talking about here today, as we've previously tackled, we apply it to the production of housing. There's no need for any reviewer to apply discretion in the application of these standards. We have quite a bit of language across the issues of code that is discretionary to some extent. If you think of words like compatible or adequate, that doesn't really mean much in terms of where the objective is because they're referring to the conditions of what those terms are. There's a few different ways that we can approach crafting a better objective standard. First of these are true and false statements. These are basically, can you do something or can you not? You can imagine what uses that are allowed in particular. So can you have a house? Can you not have a house? The next general possible avenue are counts and measurements. These are quantitative standards that apply. They can be things like our setback standards, lot coverage standards, anything that has a range of values or a specific value that can be applied. And that's probably the most common route that we've approached in terms of the objective needs. And then finally, lifter meetings. These are basically options of things that could be allowed on particular developments, and maybe we give 10 separate options, and then applicants can choose whichever of those 10 options they happen to include in particular development. This comes up less frequently, but there are a few sections, particularly in terms of site development conditions during the year to date, which they So the proposal here today, so we've obviously identified multiple areas of issues in the code that currently do not have clear and objective standards. Throughout the last two years, we've attempted to break the entirety of the code into different packages to provide you the option, as well as the public, the ability to undertake what we're changing here in the code and digestible formats. This particular amendment package, so again, just some background of what we've got over already in the pre-district packages. We've already done definitions that apply to our interzoning, but we've dealt with some of our Goal 5 resources, those protected natural resources. We've dealt with our subdivision and partition statements, so how property actually is divided up. This last package deals with cycling and conditional use standards, so cycling in particular, generally associated with commercial developments.

It can't apply to anything that requires site parking.

And it really is everything outside of the development itself that controls how we develop a property on a particular site. So you can think of things like the layout of parking on a particular area, and you can think of things like landscape standards. The next big set is airport safety standards. specific development regulations that apply for properties that are within a certain distance of designated airports in the Chutes County. The overall goal is to continue safe operations at those airports. I'll give you a few of those as part of this package. We have what are described as solar setback standards. So for many, many years, the Chutes County has had rules in place to protect solar access for properties.

You can think of this generally as attempting to help

properties receive passive solar heat for their homes, primarily in the wintertime so that they don't have to use undue energy costs. We've had to update some of those standards. We've had to update our land division standards for Title 19 zones. So we already did this for Title 18 areas, which have our most properties in Shrewsbury. But we had to go back through and we needed our Title 19 again to provide properties And then finally, we've done some work on our initiation of new standards for land use improvements. Whenever anyone receives a particular land use approval or an initiative scaling, there's generally a certain amount of time that they have to act on that approval before it expires, unless certain steps are taken to actually initiate that new standard. specifically for residential development. So our general methodology with all of these current workups is we've tried to, we have preserved all existing uses within the code. So no uses that actually moved out when it came to code. But for any modifications or clarifying language that did not have technical standards, we've gone in and changed the code language itself. We've done that in a few different ways. The first is, if there was not a suitable way to preserve the original intent of the code through modifications, we've come up with a parallel set of statements that apply to those agreements directly and objectively. We've done that in the previous three packages as well, but again, just as a reminder. Basically, with this two-track review, we've essentially kept the original code in place. Property owners can still go through that board discretionary they can go through a clear and objective framework. But the same is just on-site, but it has a different set of standards that apply to meet the thresholds of clear and objective standards. So if there are multiple standards for the same criterion, you can't use a mixture of the clear and objective standards in the previous code. So where we've created this two-track review process, you have to identify at the outset which good reasons you'd want to do that on a particular property, but if you want to go through the potentially more expeditious route for the objective standards, you just have to let us know up front. You can't change in the middle of the process and work in a mixed dimension. So any policy decisions regarding which uses should be allowed in areas haven't been attempted through these packages, and all of the previous uses in the code are still in place, we are not deciding which they should be allowed in which areas of the county. We're just attempting to clarify or modify the existing code to comply with state law. So public and agency comments-wise, we've only received one agency comment so far, and that's from the Transportation Planning House. They reviewed the proposed amendments for compliance with Goal 12. That's the state-wide planning rule here in the state of Oregon. And ultimately, they found that all the proposed amendments comply are arguing that they have either reduced or the exact same traffic again because we're not changing the planning commission has reviewed this hearing package uh they held the public hearing last month on may 5th there was no public that was received during that year ultimately they chose to close the record the conclusion of that began to recommend the next steps as i said at the beginning this Again, for anybody listening at home, you can see, I'll go to the website, where you can find all the materials associated with this project, my contact information, if you have any more specific questions. With that, we'll take any questions you may have.

So this is actually the last one? We hope so. Well, Kyle, write it down and sign in, so we can go back to you when something else pops up.

We've certainly done our best to comb through everything that we could anticipate reasonably up front that might be addressed via a clear and objective package.

There's always the off chance that something pops up if these things happen with codes, which is sort of an imprecise order. Have you looked at that federal housing bill that they were just passing that has bipartisan support? I can't say that I'm familiar with it. Okay, look, apparently it has huge bipartisan support. It had a I don't think we've had legislation on housing like maybe, I don't know, 30 years or something on that scale.

Yeah, and this is clearly, I mean, housing is a big topic. This was something the state has attempted to deal with at least over the last couple of years. Yeah, I think this is just for, we had a little bit more context discussion with the Planning Commission just so everybody was on board because this is very much in pre-needs of how you write code. What is this attempting to do? And in general, these clear and objective standards are intended to be sort of on both in the cities and now in rural areas. So if there are clear and objective standards, the idea is those standards, because they are applied universally and without discretion, the opportunities for appeals and specifically like holding up the production of housing goes down theoretically. That is at least the idea. whether or not that is successful with practice i think that yet but that that is at least certainly concept and uh because this was all coming from state law changes we were required to be in compliance with state law and so we've been sort of been on that dash to get our code changed because we didn't make certain changes before a certain date which is actually already passed last year Any of, which is why we had certain packages a little bit further ahead of the queue, because we knew that those were likely to be impossible to be challenged. And if they were challenged under these clear protective laws, essentially state will say that we cannot apply this to those that attempt to plug hole to make sure that we at least had some version of our existing sequence.

Kyle. So we're doing this because the state legislature directed us to take the bill. And they carried that bill on behalf of the builder community, who thought the idea of clear objectives sounded like it was going to really help them. I mean, my impression is that in an urban setting, in a municipal, in an incorporated city setting, might actually be helpful from everything I've heard about trying to apply, you know, make standards clear and objective in rural settings with lots of natural resource values that aren't always so tidy. You know, I'm very skeptical that this is going to happen. You have a lot of value. Is, will there, at some point along the way, will there be an evaluation or a means to evaluate whether, you know, are there actually builders who are, you know, permanent applications who are applicants who are actually using these tracks as opposed to, you know, the former discretionary pathways?

Yeah. Because of the way this whole program is set up, those shoots down, because every applicant is having to identify the outset, whether or not they want to use these standards. We are currently tracking that. I don't have the numbers in front of me, and that's something we could probably get back to you, but my understanding at least is that here, plus that we have some of these standards in place, it's pretty low in terms of who actually has to take advantage of them. It would be simply a guess on my part if, you know, we could continue or people, once they understand the process a little more, want to take advantage of them.

No, I mean, it would be great somewhere along the way to provide feedback of the policy change. It's quite possible we will find that it was a mistake by the legislature to try to do clear and objective outside of cities. But it'd be great to actually to know then. And I think it definitely provides stats that actually utilize

Some of them I will say it's a little bit tricky, because particularly with the first set of amendments that we went through, which was changes to our definitions, those apply generally, regardless of whether or not you're actually going down that specific and clear and objective path. And so in some ways, there's been probably some use in clarifying some bushy standards that we previously had, where there was a lot of conflict with applicants, and there was some discretionary language built into things like, how do we define setbacks or accessory structures, things of that nature. And I think a lot of that actually has been successful. There's reduced conflict. We have more clear sets of standards there. The broader question of the objective housing standard is still pretty low in terms of people actually choosing to do that, at least at this point.

And, Chair, one of the interesting pieces could be, for example, and it's not in this package, I think it was one of the prior packages, the landscape management review. So that's the colors, vegetation, et cetera, along major roads, streams, the scenic corridors. That can be interesting at some point to say, okay, how many have chosen the clear and objective path and how many have selected the discretionary path? Because that's a very clear one that does apply to our rural landscape here in Houston.

It does, yeah. All the coal pipe resources are going through the same update process. So my understanding, again, is that most people still are sticking to the previous rules because there's a lot more flexibility in law enforcement schools. And most applicants generally are not facing levels of resistance through appeals processes, but some will, of course. And this hopefully is, the idea is to provide sort of a pathway through some of those more complicated processes.

It'd be interesting to see how this all plays out. Well, thanks for what you're doing here. Did you ever kind of need to rely on the other, you know, state agencies or other development departments and say, now, how did you get through this one? I'm sure there's some of that in there.

We did. We are actually one of the very first counties to go through this kind of at scale. Wayne County has, they were kind of on the same timeline as us, and Watkins County has gone through a very similar set of updates, but most of the updates in jurisdictions that have gone through prayer objectives in cities, we did coordinate with them, you know, this whole process, so. city of Batten, obviously, but some folks, Petros, kind of across the state, we've reached out to you to see how they've implemented it. And everybody has a little bit of a different path. There's not sort of a standard, this is the language you should use. There's a model coming to adopt. There are themes that have

Well, it's a good raise to me, Belder, kind of looking at the whole scope of the code of Deschutes County and rural development. So that's quite an exercise. It is definitely.

Oh, yes.

Yeah. I don't have any other specific questions here. It's good that we have put these projects to bed here. Yeah, just take on the next page, whatever you do. Yeah.

Thanks for your work on this. So we, you should be ready for a public hearing on this.

Yeah, and I'll, I mean, obviously, maybe it's just kind of a primer here with the planning commission, because the board has already seen multiple versions of these packets. I mean, obviously, we'll have to go through the script and everything. If it seems like there's nobody that wants to actually participate, we can rush it to the top of the run, but hopefully we can actually get some of that information. I don't think the board wants If you want to go through the entirety of the presentation again, we're happy to do that. But at least at the planning commission stage, essentially what we did is look at the hearing, ask if anyone was there that had interest, wants to provide feedback. And at that time, there was none. So we moved relatively quickly for them to make a recommendation.

Are you guys going to provide a script for the hearing? I just hope you can provide that. that just using branch in the script, that would be great. Yeah, absolutely. There are no other questions.

Great, thank you. Of course, I'll see you on Wednesday.

I'll see you on Wednesday.

Nick's sending me the update on the federal plan, so that's really interesting.

I don't think that there are implications for land use.

I've got a good question because I see finance and multi-covered loan numbers and finance, finance, credit. Yeah, you're right. So I'm not sure.

I just, a quick question. The federal plan housing is typically about funding, you know, funding taxes, things like that, but.

Thank you.

Yeah, of course. Okay. Are there any other items at this time?

Just to update, Eastern Oregon County's Association had a meeting on Thursday morning, June 13th, 9 o'clock. It was just an update talking about legislative positions in coordination with AOC. The AOCs would have a summertime retreat next week. Also, they mentioned that PILT fly-in has been done by NACO in the past, I think about September or something like that. And it looks like it's not going to happen the same way because they determined I don't know if this was just the OCA or NACO sentence, but by the time you get there, basically everything's kind of hooked into the proposed budget. So you're advocating for something that's either in there or not in there, kind of after the fact. So the PIL client concepts may change around here this year.

Okay, good.

I will comment. I was driving to the Ag Tour in Washington County, and right before I donned them, Nick, a semi had a trailer on the back of it, did a flip, it hit the hillside on a curve with a pickup in between me at like 6.15 a.m. And it hit the hillside and then it like went over into the other lane. So somebody actually could have been killed because it flipped in that lane and then it flipped back again. But fortunately there was, you know, right before Idana, remember where Curtis lost his life here. Yeah. So anyway, the good news was nobody got hurt, but it definitely was, you know, it was a matter of timing. And then all the traffic started coming from, all of it was going eastbound for some crazy reason. So, yeah. So, yeah. Definitely a stretch of road where you want to pay a lot of attention.

One other update. I was able to go see two of the Just driving by with Jeff Merwin, the Horse Ridge parcels that we're talking about for the April acquisition last Wednesday afternoon.

So we'll kind of see them on the ground. Yeah. Good to get that perspective. A few months ago, I went out and I dug Horse Ridge from that side just to see what you could see from the trails and on top of the ridge of the proposed site. um i'll i'll mention under other items that uh this afternoon late afternoon evening there's going to be a meeting of the coordinate homeless response office at four and then the regional housing council at 5 30 in redmond and the additional seeing none um we can uh move to executive sessions Dave, do you want to read us the notice?

I will do so, yes. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will now convene an executive session for Sillage ORS 192.660. The specific authorization is 192.6602E, which allows the board to meet in executive session to discuss real property transactions. Staff and media are allowed to remain. However, media may only report on the board in an executive session and the basis for meetings. Recording devices are not permitted. No final decisions will be made in executive session. And at the conclusion of the executive session, we will open the doors and invite the audience back into the meeting. And I assume we activate ours over.

That's that.

Thank you very much.