Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for today's August 26, 2026 meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. We will now call the meeting to order. The first item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join us.

Pledge of Allegiance.

We will now review and make any necessary changes to the agenda.

Are there? Move approval of the agenda as presented.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Further discussion? Seeing none, Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay. At this time, we'll move to citizen input. I have one blue form from Sean Snyder. If there's anyone else in the room who would like to provide public comment, please fill out one of these blue forms and bring it up to Debra over there. And if there's anyone online who would like to provide public comment, please raise your virtual hand. Sean, would you like to join us?

Good morning. My Time is short here today, and so I'm going to try a different tactic. We have a few problems that are going on, I believe are absolute unacceptable behavior here in our county. And we all know that when I deal with things, what happens? And so I'm hoping to come in and try to use my three minutes to express what's going on at these three places. I've left my phone number on that piece of paper in hopes that somebody can reach out and we can have a polite professional discussion about the unacceptable behavior at these three majestic places here in our county. Like I said, I'm going to try a different tactic. The last time the tactic I tried, I came in and tried to let you all know about some unfortunate behavior that was going on at the Cleveland Commons where I was staying, a homeless shelter here in town. And we all know that while I was trying to get some help over there, we had two people that died. in the process of me trying to let you guys know the unacceptable behavior that was going on over there. I had some coordinances with Patty and I've talked to you, Mr. Chang. We have two deaths there now because people didn't want to listen to the facts and the proof that I had. And yeah, we'll leave that one alone. I'm going out to Smith Rock today. And I'm going to take care of some of the unacceptable behavior that's going on out there. And I hope that you guys will give me a call and that we can discuss the unacceptable behavior that's going out there. I'm also going out tonight to the Philz Trail. Last night there was over 50 vehicles there. Over 20 of them are over 50, 60, 70, $80,000 motor homes. Five or six of them are over $200,000 motor homes that have been there for a long time. And I record and film everything. I'm going to leave it at that and hope that you people that have been elected to do the right thing will give me a call, and we can discuss professionally this unacceptable behavior. Thank you all very, very much for your time and what you do.

Mr. Schneider, if I could ask you a question or two. Absolutely, Ken. Smith Rock State Park is a state... It's a state property. It's a state asset. Phil's Trail, Deschutes National Forests, federal asset. We do not hold any authority in either of those places. So... I'm just curious what, what you think are.

And everybody can see, and there's no way that I personally am able to let everybody know. I know who in charge of these areas and I've already confronted these people. I'm the one that changed the rules and the regulations with my civil disobedience is that Smith rock already. And we all know about that. Now it's time to do another one. because people aren't listening and they're not doing their job and the safety of the people that are going out there to enjoy that area is at a very, very high risk and it is unacceptable. The last time I came in here and tried to complain about some unacceptable behavior, two people died. I will not allow that again on my watch when I personally see unacceptable behavior happening. Mrs. Patty here was mentioning to somebody in the back about the fire and sisters. And how it was done by homeless.

No, this was a year ago.

I'm just letting you know that I overheard that. It was last night that when I went out to the Philz Trail, people were having fires out there, and there was over 50 vehicles. I stopped counting. It is unacceptable behavior out there, and we're going to have another fire. And so some of the residents like myself are tired of it, and we can either handle it ourselves, or we can come in here politely and respectfully and humbly and ask for help. And that's what I'm doing now, sir.

So I guess I'd like to ask you who you would like us to contact. So again, these are not our...

I need to contact to get some help for these unacceptable situations that are going on here in our county. I provided a number there. If there's any way that people that know people that can guide me in the direction that I need to go in so that I don't have to handle these situations myself would be greatly appreciated.

Sean, what's going on at Smith Rock?

So Smith Rock, we have, you guys know it's a climbing area. Right. And for safety, we have to have these bolts. There is thousands and thousands and thousands of these bolts that have been placed. For many years, anybody can go to Home Depot or can go to Lowe's, can go to wherever with no knowledge and can put a bolt in and we and your family are supposed to go out there and expect those bolts to be safe. I had a 501c3 for many years and a special use permit to go out there and replace those bolts with the money out of my own pocket for decades. OK, so I have first hand knowledge of what's going on out there. I had to do a civil disobedience to force the United States government to change the rules and regulations out there. Now you cannot go to Smith Rock and you cannot place a bolt without written permission. from the superintendent matt davey and prove that you know how to remove said both that you're putting in in the future for when it gets wore out you have to remove that bull now what's happening because there's now rules and regulations at smith rock right next to there we have a road called burma road and that divides blm from from actual smith rock so now everybody's gone over there And I've provided several videos and thousands of photos for decades now of all the destruction that's going out out there. I've just recently been received a ticket that I brought with me from an officer because I went out there and I cut a rope that has been there for six months. in the sun decaying with the rats taking the the fibers and whatnot when i got photos of everything there there's toolboxes there's blowers there's there's uh lounge chairs people are just hanging out and living at the crag as they're bolting developing they've taken rakes and shovels and they're taking all of the vegetation down to bare minimum soil from 15 to 20 feet from the base of the wall out. There's literally, Patty, no exaggeration, thousands of rocks that are being pried off the wall to make a route go because the rock is chossy. And so I don't want to take any more people's time. There's other people in here that have things that need to say. This is getting out of hand for decades. And somebody needs to do something about it. Or I, Sean Snyder, not threatening anybody. There's no threats here. I will go out and do the right thing and handle it myself. And we all know what happens. 2015, Scott Cederstrom died, one of my great friends. And I opened my own 501c3 and spent thousands of dollars going into our national parks and fixings as one of the only human beings in America that has a special use permit to do this. And so you guys need to understand that you're professionals in your field. I'm a professional in mine, and people need to take the time to listen and get educated and realize what's going on in our majestic areas. It is unacceptable. I've said enough. Thank you.

Thank you, Sean.

Thank you.

I hope to get a phone call.

Okay um it is there any additional citizen input. Seeing none in the room or online. We will move on to Commissioner announcements.

Just acknowledging County College, we have 26 residents of Deschutes County enjoying and learning about, committing to learning about Deschutes County, the different departments and the policy choices and decision making and budget. So it's really exciting to see the engaged citizens in our County College program.

And as I mentioned last night, regarding the loss of Dolly Parton, it's amazing she reached across all people in America. And the fact that on the news last night, they acknowledged that over almost 9,000 families in central Oregon have been recipients. Their kids have been recipients of books through Dolly's program, over 200 million books. We all know how important reading is, and hopefully someone will step up and continue her tradition because it's really to be commended. Her music was fabulous, but her reading was probably even bigger.

I'll just let you know that tomorrow the Deschutes Basin Border Control, the Irrigation District Association is organizing an agricultural water infrastructure tour for the upper Deschutes Basin, and I'll be in attendance.

I'll be there also. Good to know.

I believe that Commissioner-Elect Rick Russell is also going to be in attendance. Okay. If there are no further Commissioner announcements, we can move on to our consent agenda.

So move.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? I'll just say that there are some great grant applications that are among our consent agenda items that I hope we have great success in pursuing. With that, we'll call for the vote. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner Dubon? Yes. And chair votes yes. all right moving on to action items in our agenda item number six uh a public hearing and consideration of order 2026-034 approving an annexation to ben park and recreation district morning commissioners i'm going to handle this real quickly

This is time for public hearing set to consider approval of order 20-26-034. This is an annexation of 91 acres on Woodside Road, which is south of Knott Road, kind of, I believe, just a little southwest of Caldera High School as well, and bringing this into the Bend Park and Rec District. The petitioner, Caldera Holdings and Woodside Ventures, submitted the petition. It's gone through the process, including Bend Park and Rec. the assessor's office, the clerk, and community development all recommend that the board open the public hearing and proceed to approve of the annexation.

Okay. Are there any questions or comments from commissioners before we open a public hearing on this item? All right. Okay, well, at this time, we can open a public hearing on order 2026 approving an annexation to the Bend Park and Recreation District. And I'll just dive right in and we'll see if there's anyone in the room who would like to comment during this public hearing process. And for people online, if you're interested in providing input during this public hearing, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing none, we can now close the public hearing and move on to consideration of this annexation order.

I will move approval of order number 2026-034, approving an annexation to the Bend Park and Recreation District.

Second.

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

Just acknowledge this is a couple of parcels at the edge of the city on the other side of Knott Road in the south side of Bend. And, you know, we did, I think, do a rezone on this one parcel and this will be future housing. So it's good to be in the park district.

Very good. With that, we can call for the vote. Commissioner DeBone?

Yes.

Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes.

Thank you commissioners.

Thank you Dave. So next we have another annexation action item. Item number seven public hearings and consideration of orders 2026-032 and 2026-033 approving annexations to the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District number two.

Yes, commissioners. Now is the time for the public hearing on these matters. I'd suggest we do each one separately. The first one would concern order 2026-032. These properties are both located south of Highway 20 and essentially due east of Knott Landfill. And they're each approximately nine acres, actually 9.9 acres and 9.52. The first one is the Olson annexation. It's at 60555 Ward Road. Again, that's 9.9 acres. This has been through the appropriate processes, including Rural Fire Protection II, the assessors, the clerk's office, and community development. And they've all suggested that this be approved.

Okay.

Any questions or thoughts before we open the public hearing? So Dave, should we do a separate public hearing for each or should we do just separate motions for each?

I'd recommend separate public hearings just to keep it clean.

Okay, so at this time we will open a public hearing on order 2026 approving an annexation to the Deschutes County Borough Fire Protection District number two. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide input during this hearing? And Eric, is there anyone online with their hand raised?

Okay.

Seeing none, we can close the public hearing for Order 2026-032 and consider a motion.

So move approval of Order No. 2026-032, approving an annexation to the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2.

I will second it. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Just acknowledging for all these items, these three items, this has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Protection District, Community Development, Clerk's Office. So there's quite a process before it even gets to us.

I'll just say that I am really glad that people are taking, you know, availing themselves of the fire protection that is, you know, that they have access to based on where they live and annexing into this, into the RFPD number two. Okay. Commissioner Dare, you made the motion.

I did.

Yes. Okay. So Commissioner Dare?

Yes.

Commissioner Dubon? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay. Now we can proceed to the public hearing for Order 2026-033, Approving Annexations to the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2.

Yes, commissioners, this is the elk annexation. It's likewise on Ward Road 60575 and it's just over nine and a half acres. And as before, all the appropriate county staff and the Rural Fire Protection Board has approved this and recommend the board approve it. I guess I should just note, too, that there has been talk for years at the legislature to make this more of an administrative process. This goes back decades and decades. And to have public hearings before the county commissioners on these, I've been doing them for 30 years. I don't know that there's ever been somebody that showed up to testify. And so it's... Probably something that could be done administratively because there are, you know, the various processes that it has to go through. But anyway, just point that out because somebody in the audience might be wondering why are we having public hearings for this. But that's why. It's in the state law. Until it gets removed, that's how we do it.

And Dave, has the legislature been discussing that specifically for fire district annexations or just for any annexation?

I was aware generally just any annexations that come before the county commissioners of park and recreation district, fire districts. You know, 30, 40 years ago, you didn't have the oversight. You didn't have the internet, obviously. You didn't have the ability to access documents and whatnot. And this stuff is all pretty much administrative. It's people saying, hey, I want to come into your district and pay you taxes. So generally, if they want it and the district wants it, I've yet to see where somebody outside of those two parties ever raised their hand and said, I don't want that to happen. Maybe it will sometime in the next 50 years, but I haven't seen it in 30 plus years. Again, it probably won't get changed because it's one of those minimal things. It's not the end of the world to bring it by you folks. I just made the comment because, again, people might be wondering why are we having a public hearing that no one shows up to that is pretty much just a stamp. And it's because state statute says we have to.

Yeah, but looking towards the next legislative session when money will be scarce, people might be looking for, you know, legislators might be looking for something to do that doesn't cost anything and that actually, you know, you can make the argument that this approves our efficiency if we don't have to hear it at the Board of Commissioners and saves the people of Deschutes County a little bit of money. So, okay. So... Do we have any questions or comments before we open up the public hearing? Alright, then at this time we will open the public hearing for order 2026-033 approving annexation to the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District number two. Is there anyone in the room would like to provide input on this annexation hearing? Eric, any hands raised online? Seeing none, we can proceed to consideration and a motion.

Go ahead.

Move approval of order number 2026-033, approving the annexation of the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District number two.

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.

Thank you, commissioners.

Thank you, Dave. Okay. We have a few more public hearings. Item number eight, public hearing for Dickey Road LLC comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for 51.86 acres from exclusive farm use to multiple use agriculture. Okay. Okay. Dan, should I jump right into the scripted structure, or do you have any comments to provide in advance?

Good morning. Just for the record, Dan DiMarzo, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department.

Okay. All right. This is the time and place set for a hearing regarding file number 245-25-000727-PA. and 247-25-00728-ZC. This is a hearing on a Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change Request. Staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed.

Thank you, Chair Chang. Again, for the record, my name is Dan DiMarzo, Associate Planner with the Deschutes County Community Development Department. Today, the Board of County Commissioners will take testimony and receive written evidence concerning a comprehensive plan amendment from agriculture to rural residential exception area and a zone change request from exclusive farm use to multiple use agricultural. Today's hearing will proceed as follows. First, staff will explain the hearing format and how to testify at today's hearing. This will be followed by a brief presentation on the application. Then the testimony portion of the hearing will begin. The applicant will proceed first and will be afforded 30 minutes. Next, persons in support can testify and will have three minutes. Then those in opposition will testify and will also have three minutes. After the applicant will be afforded a 10 minute rebuttal testimony period. And lastly, staff may have closing comments. This is a hybrid public hearing with both in person and remote participation. Before starting your testimony, please provide your first and last name as well as your mailing address. For those testifying in person, if you wish to testify, please fill out a blue sign-up sheet and submit it to the board's executive assistant, Deborah, to the left of the dais. Chair Chang will then call up in-person participants for their testimony. After your name is called, please come up to one of the tables in the front of the room before beginning your testimony. For those participating remotely, if you wish to testify, you must be logged into Zoom or have called in using the Zoom dial-in option. When Chair Chang asks if anybody would like to testify, you will need to use the raise hand feature to notify the board. To do this, you need to press the raise hand button on your computer or smart device, or if you've called in, please dial star nine. When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist. Please note you may experience a brief pause as your status changes, but once you have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera if you would like to. In addition to oral testimony, if anyone has written testimony they would like to submit, please hand it directly to me. If you are in person, please submit this written testimony to me after your testimony. And if you are participating remotely, please submit it to me via email at dan.damarzo at deschutes.org. Chair and staff are responsible for conducting an orderly hearing. Any testimony or behavior which is deemed inappropriate will be addressed and may result in that member of the public being removed from today's hearing. Back to you, Chair Chang.

Does any commissioner have, so at this time we should check in to see if any commissioners have any ex-party contacts, prior hearing observations, biases or conflicts of interest. Does any commissioner have anything to disclose and if so, please state the nature of same and whether you can proceed.

I have none and I can proceed.

And I have no conflicts and I can proceed.

I have no conflicts and I can proceed. Okay. Now we'll check to see if anyone else wants to challenge any commissioners. Does any party wish to challenge any commissioner, a member of this hearings body, based on ex-party contacts, biases, or conflicts of interest? As no challenges are presented, prior to opening the hearing, does anyone have any procedural objections to the public hearing? Okay, seeing none, the hearing is now open. Staff will proceed with a brief staff report.

Thank you, Chair Chang. I will now provide a bit more information on the subject proposal. Once again, a comprehensive plan amendment and corresponding zone change. The property consists of two undeveloped tax lots, together approximately 51.86 acres in size, and they are approximately 0.65 miles east of the City of Bend's urban growth boundary, just south of Baltimore Market Road. The applicant has requested an amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan designations for the property. They are requesting a change from the current designation of Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, The applicant has also requested a concurrent change to the zoning designation from exclusive farm use to multiple use agricultural. Of note, the applicant has not requested an exception to statewide planning goal three, agricultural lands, on the basis that the property does not meet the definition of agricultural land. In support of this argument, the applicant has provided an order one soil survey report prepared by a professional soil scientist. The report concluded that the subject property consists predominantly approximately 69.6% of capability class VII and VIII soils. An initial public hearing before a hearings officer was held on May 7th, 2026. Central Oregon Land Watch and the applicant's team both provided oral testimony and the written record was left open following the hearing. A hearings officer recommendation of approval was mailed on June 24th, 2026. During these proceedings, Central Oregon Land Watch was the sole opponent during the hearings officer hearing. Issue items presented by Central Oregon Land Watch consisted of a conflict between the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code, the application of the MUA 10 zone to non-resourced lands without taking an exception to Goal 14, compliance with the purpose statement of the MUA 10 zone, and compliance with the provisions of OAR 660-033-0020. Of note, there is a recent record item submitted by Central Oregon Land Watch that staff received this morning. It has been uploaded to the record. Staff would also like to confirm that the hearings officer recommendation was issued prior to a recent LUBA remand order, which was generally referred to as BCL. That order was issued on June 26th, and the applicants team has presented some record material into the public record in response to that remand.

Dan, could you go back a slide real quick and just explain the OAR 660? Sure.

It's the topic.

Maybe that was the next slide.

It's okay. I have a slide prepared for that.

Okay. Thank you.

So OIR 660, and recognizing the font is a little small here, 660-033-0020 is the Oregon State rules that define agricultural land. There's a multi-pronged test that applicants are required to confirm compliance with to either confirm the property is or is not recognized as agricultural land, and Central Oregon Land Watch, in their participation during the hearings officer proceedings, identified a number of factors that they deemed as issue items under that criteria. I expect additional material will be discussed today.

So it is the Goal 3 topic. So I was just making sure I understood what the OAR reference was. Yep, Goal 3.

So the slide now depicts the hearings process. Because this zone change does involve resource lands, a de novo hearing is required to be held before the Board of County Commissioners. The full record is available at the project's website, displayed on this slide. And at the conclusion of today's hearing, the board has four options. They can continue the hearing to a date and time certain. They can close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain. They can close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined. Or they can close the hearing and commence deliberations. Staff is available for any questions.

Great. Are there any questions for Dan?

Not at this time.

At this point, we can open the public hearing and begin to take testimony. So Typically the way this flows is we will hear from the applicants, persons in support, then persons in opposition. The applicant will then have some time for rebuttal and staff will provide closing comments. And okay. At this time, I've got two blue forms. If there's anyone else in the room who would like to provide input during this public hearing, please look for a blue form over there and fill it out and bring it up to Deborah. If there's anyone online, we will be looking for a raised hands when we get past the applicant presentation, and we are hearing from people in support or in opposition. With that, please proceed, Mr. Govac.

Good morning, Chair Chang, Commissioner DeBone, Commissioner Adair. My name is Chris Kobach. I'm at the Buchanan Schmidt Kobach. I'm a land use lawyer at 937 Northwest Newport, Suite 220, Bend 97703. I've been here before, and I know that the commissioners, this board and prior boards, have entertained this rezoning issue previously. for a number of years. Recently, I would say there's been an evolution of some of the standards. There's been a lot of appeals to LUPA, a lot of decisions clarifying or expanding on things. And I think that's been a good process. And from the way we looked at it with this application, which is, as staff said, an application similar to those you've heard before to rezone property to MUA 10, based on it not being an agricultural soil, agricultural land, We put together an application, we think and believe, and the hearings officer believed, conform to this evolving landscape we have. In the past, you know, the standard really on suitability was, could you graze on it? And that was the end of the story. And then Destiny Court came out and 10, 710 properties. And the standard was, well, you got to look at other farm uses potentially in certain circumstances. And then that changed how we looked at suitability under the OAR 6600330020 and you'll see the application material not only in this one but in BCL and others started to expand with expert testimony from farmers people that really understand what it takes to engage in farm activities and as Luba agreed for the primary purpose of making a profit And that's going to be an issue we talk about because there's a debate on how you examine that element. But in this case, you know, we presented the application with the official soils report certified DSL or DLCD. has not commented, they've reviewed it and approved it, no negative comments. We had, like I said, the expert, Greg Jacobs, examine the property in detail, issued two written statements, one in support of the application, one to respond to opponents. We examined the third prong necessity of keeping this property rezoned or keeping it EFU as a necessary step to allow farm practices on adjacent or nearby properties. we addressed the policy issue that we're going to talk about, Policy 3.31. In the end, the hearings officer, and you have the full recommendation, it's very detailed. It's one of the more detailed ones I've seen, and I think that also reflects that their hearings officers are taking this changing landscape seriously and saying, we're going to do a full detailed analysis of these applications. And hearings officer Frank did that, and he weighed all of the factors, all of the evidence, and he supported and recommended that the application be approved. I'm going to talk really today mostly about kind of three or four big issues and because some of the things weren't contested below. And the first one is this policy issue of three-point 3.1 and you all know how that's evolved destiny court luba said hey there's this inconsistency and remanded it back to the board to address the inconsistency the board attempted to address it and then pakua farms came and luba said well you didn't quite do it exactly right because you applied a a state regulation that doesn't apply to non-resource land so now Last week, you all voted on new policies to address that in the remand, and we're moving forward to, I think, achieve the consistency Luba is looking for. Now, how we address... I think the hearings officer got it right here. We've argued this on BCL. We argued it here. Luba disagreed with me, and they have the right to do that, and they control. But I believe... hearings officer got it right by saying this application to rezone does not create any inconsistency because it doesn't ask for any cluster development or any parcel less than 10 acres and your code assures that that will never happen in a future application because to divide property into shoots county under title 17 you have to demonstrate consistency with the comp plan and the comp plan right now is 3.31 10 acre minimum no exceptions and luba agreed with that that under the baker city milwaukee case the comp plan is the controlling law So I think the hearings officer got it right. And I think with the assurances already there, that's enough. But to do a belt and suspenders, and on page 33 of its opinion in BCL, Luba suggested to address some of these issues, a condition of approval or something in the decision to give them the assurance that the board, I think the board, I don't think the county would approve a cluster development under the current law. I have confidence in the staff and the hearings officials. But just as a precaution, we proposed a condition that I believe the applicant is lawfully entitled to propose. I got some comments this morning when I got in the office from Land Watch about how the condition that gives Land Watch exactly what it's asking for still shouldn't be allowed. And I think there's totally... wrong arguments, bad arguments. For one, they say the condition would not allow uses otherwise allowed in the MUA 10 zone. That's not true at all. It would allow every use allowed in the MUA 10 zone. It would only allow them on 10 acre parcels, which is what Landwatch argues is the minimum. That's the standard. So it doesn't change any uses. It doesn't require a modification because it doesn't change the uses on the property. Every MUA 10 use would still be allowed, but you would have to comply with the current parcel size. It would be a condition that was absolutely lawful and appropriate. And as I said in my letter, it's kind of an interim measure because once the 2040 plan is acknowledged, and I'm confident it will be acknowledged, there is a process where you get your mua 10 approval if you want to go lower than 10 acres you have to do a quasi judicial application and you have to demonstrate consistency with goal 14. so i think the board has done a really good job of addressing luba's concerns in a in a comprehensive way with these new amendments and i think it's going to take care of the issue but in the interim this condition would make sure that luba's concern about a rogue approval of a cluster development will not happen

Got a question. Tell me about that condition. Is it in the, was it referenced in the hearings officer or is that coming in after the fact? So, you know, I'm just kind of getting focused on where we're at here.

A hearings officer decision in our case took place before BCL decision. Okay. But then Luba in the BCL decision said it's not enough to have this already existing plan to assure consistency. They were concerned, I think, about just a rogue decision. So we responded to the board with a proposed condition because Luba suggested in its decision that that's one way the county could further ensure that we're not going to see a cluster approval.

Well, that proposed condition is just out there for us to accept as a possible decision in a decision of the board.

Exactly. I'm just trying to make sure. Where is that condition right now? It's attached to our letter that we submitted on August 21st. And we're proposing that as the applicant is if the board feels that there is more assurance other than what's already in your code to assure this consistency, we believe that condition will absolutely close the loop on that. And it'll assure that anything that happens on this property after MUA 10 rezoning, any parcelization has to be done consistent with the acknowledged plan. Either it's 3.31 now, or if they want to wait and go later, it's going to be 10.4, 10.1 point.

It's on the last page of their letter. It's on the backside of their letter.

But I was just acknowledging that, yeah, that's, it's on the table for us to accept or, you know, to include in a decision. Exactly.

And that's what I was referring to. Your hearing is that land watch still means I think you can do it because it will change uses in the MUA 10 zone. And I'm just, it just won't. There's that argument has no merit whatsoever. So the second big issue is suitability. Well, it is this agricultural land and staff did a good job. The regulations up there. There's really three basic tests. One is you look at a soil report, certified soil report. This one demonstrates not only is it predominantly Class 7 and 8 soil, it goes into great detail of why it is. It's Gosney 58 rock outcrop. And there's pictures and a lot of text explaining how troublesome it is to try to farm on Gosney rock outcrop. It doesn't hold water. You've got to remove the rock to create stuff, planting areas. That report goes beyond just the numbers. It explains the problems with this type of soil. And then the second factor is, even if it's seven and eight, you have to show that it's not suitable considering a variety of factors. And in this case, your hearings officer went through every factor with excruciating detail, weighing which ones went which way, and ultimately relied, I think, primarily on kind of the undeniable facts, and our expert is... When you apply the proper test that Luba has accepted in the Court of Appeals and the Redside case accepted is, would a reasonable farmer be motivated to engage in farm activity for the primary purpose of a profit, considering all those factors? And so the issue here is, where does profitability fit into that? The definition, as the court said in Redside, the statutory definition of farm use includes profit. Now, it's just one factor, and you can't just say, if it doesn't make a profit, you get rezoned. You have to look at all of the factors, but you do not have to discount profitability because it impacts the mind of the reasonable farmer. And I think I wrote this down. Lubas said on a case... One of their tests was even more pointed. Is property capable of farm use with a reasonable expectation of yielding a profit? That's what Luba said in the 710 property. So you have to look at what a farmer is going to analyze. And here we had Greg Jacobs, a farmer, go out and dig all these test pits. What he found is monolithic rock all over the site. It's deep, and to get it out, he explained how you'd have to do it. You can't use a tractor. You'd have to come in with commercial-grade equipment, blast the rock. There's evidence that just to get utilities in that abandoned foundation on the property, they had to blast for their utility lines. So after that, a farmer would have to look at what is the cost of all of that, renting this commercial equipment, blasting, removing all that rock. Then I've got to bring in soil amendments that Mr. Jacobs said are just prohibitively expensive, and it takes years to do that. So when you're looking at the reasonable farmer and what's going to motivate them and how profit's going to factor into it, they've got to make a living. So if this farmer and his family are going to have to spend millions and millions of dollars up front, at what point would they ever be able to turn a profit? That's not even accounting for the fact that there's limited irrigation on this property. And so we believe that on suitability, the hearings officer did an excellent job, and he did consider other uses in the area. We've submitted evidence, and Landwatch submitted evidence, and he considered whether in conjunction with other farming or other operations. The farming operations that are ongoing in this area, as we illustrated, are Northwest, of this site by quite a distance off of Butler Market Road. They're all 36C soils predominantly, much better land. They're irrigated. We're not saying that you can't farm in this general area. There are farming operations smaller scale that are ongoing. Our position is, Nobody would incorporate this property into an ongoing property because it's an albatross. With everything you'd have to do to try to farm it, no reasonable farmer would ever attempt to incorporate this property into another farming operation. So in conjunction with existing uses, it would never work. Then we went to the third prong. Is it necessary to keep the zoning on the property? And this is one that I believe, based on my quick read of the letter this morning, is one that Landwatch is arguing today. And I think the record is very good on this. First of all, the only thing Landwatch did below, and the hearings officer acknowledged it, is said there could be potential conflicts. If you rezone this to MUA 10, there could be these trespass, there could be noise, there could be traffic. They never submitted any evidence from which the hearings officer could evaluate it, or we could for that matter. And so we went to the strict definition of necessary that LUBA has adopted in its cases, and that is very strict. It's a very high standard. Is it indispensable that this property remain EFU to allow farm practices on adjacent properties? Contrary to what Land Watch said, we did submit significant evidence We went through the uses that they, the properties that they said had some farm use on it, and we noted two of them not only had some limited farming activities, but like farm stands, they also were using their property for campgrounds. a commercial use. So our argument was, well, of course you can have MUA uses that are compatible and don't create conflicts that make it impossible to farm, or you wouldn't put commercial uses on your farmland. So two of their properties had other uses, and they were compatible, or people wouldn't have done it. The third farm, the small Fabicini farm, whatever, we looked at the property, and you have pictures of it. It's follow. There's a sign there, but nobody's operating it. So I think that's further evidence that... These small-scale farms don't make it. People will not be motivated to engage in those activities on even good property for a profit, much less spend all of the money you'd have to spend on this type of property to convert it to somewhat usable property. And not to mention there are no buildings, there's nothing on this property that could ever be used as a farm operation. So everything would have to be built new. And Mr. Jacobs did a really good job of going through what you have to do as a reasonable farmer and how you have to justify those upfront costs. It's not just a little bit of stuff. It's like this is millions and millions of dollars just to try to get something started. You'd be bankrupt, in his opinion, before you ever opened your doors, before you planted a seed. So we addressed that issue, suitability for farming. The last thing was consistency with the purpose of the MUA 10 zone. I think the argument there was you can never zone MUA 10 property on non-resource land. And the ordinance that the landlord cited just doesn't say that. It says that MUA 10 will be placed on this exception land, but it doesn't say it's not appropriate anywhere else. And I know we have decades of cases where the board has put MUA 10 on non-resourced land. So I'm going to submit that I think our evidence on consistency with the purpose of the MUA 10 zone has been satisfied. So those were kind of the main points that we saw. Everything else I think in the hearings officer decision was solid and much of it is not contested today. The necessity is contested, the policy issues contested, which we went into, and then suitability overall and how profit, plays into it. Those are the issues that you're going to hear about from LandWatch. And I think this application, the hearings officer, and all of the evidence are consistent with LUBA's decisions. And they support a conclusion that it is just not suitable for farming. So I'm happy to answer any questions, discuss any of these issues.

Are there any questions?

No questions. Nothing at this time.

I have a few questions.

Oh, good.

So you made a strong argument that this is not agricultural land, that even nearby agricultural land isn't really being farmed. If the agricultural opportunities and potential of this land are so low, why are you pursuing MUA zoning, multiple-use agricultural? So, I mean, why not just go to a rural residential tent?

Well, I think the uses are about the same. As I read the code, MUA 10 uses and RR 10 uses are almost identical. That's one reason why you would do that. I think MUA 10 is kind of the zone that people are directed into going. We don't do this without consulting with staff and having a pre-application conference. And there's only two zones you can go in. You're right, MUA 10 under this RR 10 We're a residential exception area. We're RR10. I suppose we could have asked for RR10, but I don't think that really changes the equation. You'd make the same use of the property.

Well, I think that the label of the MUA zoning implies that, you know, you're still entertaining some potential agricultural use of the property. And it just seems inconsistent with the description of the property that you've just given us.

Well, it's not necessarily inconsistent. And our expert did a really good job of this, I think. And I think it's come up in other cases, including Luba discussions, which is the MUA10 zoning doesn't rule out some farm activities container farming other small scale stuff and what luba said in the case i think it was the 710 properties is those are different than farm use under the statute because people don't engage in those for profit you have you don't have to so you can go out and have a 10 acre home site. And maybe you can justify amending a little garden plot or something and having your hobby farm because you're not doing it for a profit. You're actually subsidizing it, but you're willing to subsidize it because you've got that rural lifestyle that you want and you've got that big acreage. And so There are, we feel this is actually taking land like this and zoning it MUA 10. Actually, at least it preserves the ability to continue some of these small scale family farms that are not necessarily done to make any profit, but they're important. It teaches kids things. It has family connectiveness. You have your farm there. You have your little goats there. You have, it gives us an opportunity for people who want to do something and they're willing to subsidize it. And so we think it's a very consistent zone for lands just like this. And that's what Greg Jacobs said. He's a farmer. He does this stuff. That's what he thinks the best use of a property like this is.

Hobby farm.

And that's part of the, you know, when you looked at that 1990 ordinance that Landwatch put in, and they talked about the purpose of the MUA 10 zone and the creation of it, they actually talk about hobby farms. That was one of the purposes for the MUA 10 zoning was to allow for this exact family type operation where you're not looking to make money. You don't need it to sustain yourself, but it's still valuable. And we're trying to preserve that.

I mean, I think there's a very fine line between a hobby farm on MUA 10 and a EFU zone property that someone is farming but is depending on the other income earner in the household to go into town and earn income in order to subsidize the continuing agricultural activity on that EFU zone property. I mean, there's If we applied the criteria of profitability to real farms, many of the real farms in Deschutes County, I think you would find that a lot of them failed the profitability criteria. I have significant problems with that factor being considered. Moving on to a couple of other questions, I would like to ask, what is the intended use of this land? Has the owner, the applicant specified an intended use or disposal of this property?

He's here, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but the plan is to keep 10-acre parcels. He wants to live there, and he wants opportunities for his relatives to perhaps live there too. He has no intention to cluster. He has no intention to do anything, and there's domestic avian water, so it seems conducive for him to build a house there. He doesn't have to waste irrigation on bad soil. He can rely on avian water for the domestic, and he can live out in a beautiful area on his dream home. That's his plan.

Can you remind me how close this property is to the urban growth boundary?

Less than a mile.

Yeah. I mean, as we have seen, when the city arrives, when the urban growth boundary arrives in built-out rural residential zoned areas, it is actually, it inhibits the expansion of the city into those areas. The areas that are left inside the city city of Ben's urban growth boundary that are, um, that are RR10 or MUA10 zoned are the ones that the city is having the most difficult time adding to the city and urbanizing. And, you know, adding, you know, you have a 10-acre lot with RR10 or MUA10 zoning, you could put one house there. And with urban zoning inside a city, you could do... You could do, you know, 80 homes inside 10 acres. So the proximity to the urban growth boundary is a concern for me as well. I have seen rezone applications in near proximity to the city with the intention of of essentially making it easier to bring that land into the UGB because non-resource zones are prioritized over EFU-zoned land. And I can see an argument for that. But when we're talking about properties so close to the urban growth boundary, the idea of building it out at RR10 to me suggests that in 20 or 30 years when the city comes knocking at that door, this will become a liability for the orderly expansion of our community, of the cities where most of the people in the state of Oregon under our land use planning system are supposed to live. So that's a concern for me as well.

We had the same talk a couple of times, and I've been thinking a lot about it. And I think a couple of comments. One is I think that's a valid concern. And I think, ironically, the cluster development, setting aside 65% of open space, helps reduce that concern because that's the purpose of it. Right.

I agree. I understand what we have done about cluster development, and I don't like it, but basically that's what we're working with for the time being. Frankly, I think... I would like us to be able to do cluster developments, especially near into our urban centers, and I would like the potential lot size to be smaller. Because if you could take 50 acres and put five units in a little corner of that property, then that would leave 40-something acres for future urbanization as a blank slate, which would be a really great thing to have 20 or 30 years from now, again, when the city comes knocking. Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you.

And then the other example would be to create some kind of urban reserve. And I think that there's some movement towards that, that at least that's what you told me last time. And and I think, you know, I thought about that a lot. And I think if you had an urban reserve and you used an incentive process rather than a mandate and said to people that. You can rezone to MUA 10, but you have to agree to be in the reserve or you can only do this development. If you come into the reserve and agree not to develop until the UGB grows, we'll give you super priority, something like that. I think there's ways to address your concern that aren't currently there. And I'm advocating for a client based on the current law. Yeah. In the current law, I think he has established or it has established that they've met all the criteria for a rezone consistent with other applications and other decisions by this board approving these applications. And so I'm advocating for the application of the current standards and the current law to a very solid set of facts on a piece of property that does not meet the definition of agricultural property and does have a much better use, potential use as MUA 10.

Yeah.

Thank you. I appreciate that there is the law that we currently have. I mean, at this point in time, by this point in time, given how long ago I was proposing the idea of some kind of an overlay that would accomplish urban reserve type issues, you know, type possibilities. We could have had that by now. And, you know, I'm as disappointed as anyone else that we don't. But, yeah, I mean, it is unfortunate that we are considering this application under current law. And, you know, I'm just left with the concern that This application under current law and the development that would be allowed would be a liability to our community in the future. So a couple of other things I'd like to ask. Across the Deschutes Basin, we are seeing agricultural land with very good soil being fallowed because there's no water. So this property sits within... in irrigation district with the most senior rights. Um, and so they have access to some of the best water, uh, available. And, um, you know, I, I hear the arguments about, you know, the, the, the, the modest amount of good soil that is, uh, on the property, but, um, When we, you know, for many years we've held soil, you know, soil tests, you know, soil quality up as kind of like the primary driver of, you know, should we think about this as having agricultural potential or not? I'd like to put forward the idea that with our changing water supplies over the last couple of decades, with the increasing uncertainty of water supplies to some of the best agricultural lands, within the Deschutes Basin that we need to stop thinking about, you know, where's the good soil? And, you know, yeah, like let's add some water to that. And we need to we need to invert our thinking and and start thinking about how we can make the soil good in places where we have access to the most senior water rights possible. And so that plays into Uh, maybe not for this property specifically, but it, it, it plays into the whole adjacency discussion, uh, or the, um, nearby lands discussion. Um, because you, as you laid out, there are. properties in the area that have better soils, not necessarily being farmed or farmed to their full potential. And that is a concern. I think that part of the reason for that might be that the parcels are chopped up into small pieces. this kind of a rezone proposal would allow even further chopping up of properties into small pieces. One of my particular concerns about the whole adjacency or nearby lands argument is the possibility that People are buying lands that are zoned EFU at EFU prices, turning around with an expectation that they are going to be able to rezone that land to MUA 10, RR 10, and drastically and dramatically increase the value of that land. you know, in a matter of years. And what effect does that have on lands that are immediately, you know, in the immediate vicinity of that of that property? So by driving up the price of this piece of land, by creating an expectation that rezoning, if you zoned land, to mua 10 or r10 allows uh you know essentially up zoning allows you know greater opportunities for development um and dramatically increases the value of the land we could be driving up the prices of efu's owned land uh and that is uh extremely challenging to people who are actually trying to practice agriculture in our community. So I do think that there are real concerns about changing land values in association with rezones and the viability of agriculture in the near vicinity going forward. That's not really a question, but that's something I want to raise for you. as a as a concern and as another dimension of this this argument about you know whether um whether nearby properties depend upon this property being efu or not um in order to be able to continue farming thank you um that's the last of my questions or comments if there are none from my colleagues i appreciate it as always thank you Okay. All right. At this time, we will hear from persons in support of the application. Is there anyone in the room who would like to speak in support of the application? Eric, are there any hands raised online? Okay. Next we'll move to persons in opposition to the application. I have one blue form from Robin Hayakawa from Central Oregon Land Watch. Okay, Mr. Hayakawa, you have 10 minutes.

Okay, great. Good morning, Chair Chain, Commissioners DeBone, Commissioner Adair. It's good to see you all here. My name is Robin Hayakawa. I'm a staff attorney for Central Oregon Land Watch. Our address is 2843 Northwest Lolo Drive, Bend, Oregon 97703. I don't know that I actually... I'd like to probably keep it pretty short this morning. I do agree with Mr. Kobach that hearings officer Frank spent a lot of time with our comments below and issued a, I think, like vetted the issues quite well and offered a thorough opinion on a thorough recommendation. I also last night, uh, submitted some additional written comments. Uh, I intended to have them to you and to, uh, the applicant and planning staff sooner, but, um, we've had busy weeks at land watch as I'm sure is taking place at Deschutes County, um, Buchanan Schmid. And, uh, so in the future, I will try to provide them to you sooner, but I think they, um, some of the issues that I really want to cover today, and I hope you'll read them and give them your close attention and consideration. They do lay out what we see as some shortcomings and inadequacies with the hearings officer recommendation. Turning to the substance, starting with Goal 3 in OAR 6600330020, I think Land Watch would acknowledge that the subject property is not, portions of the subject property are not ideal farm ground. I saw the pictures in the record. There are big, large rock outcroppings on the property. We acknowledge that. Nonetheless, we do believe that the subject property should be considered agricultural land under state law. We believe it's suitable for farm use and potentially necessary to permit farm practices taking place on nearby and adjacent lands. As you have heard from staff and from the applicant, there are 36A soils on the property that's considered high-value farmland in Deschutes County. When water is applied to 36A soils, they become Class III. That is the most productive farm ground that we have in Central Oregon and Deschutes County. The subject property also does have irrigation water. It's presently in an in-stream lease through COID. One question that I would like to see that I've had in reviewing this that I would like to see addressed maybe in findings by the board or the applicant could supply is it's not clear from the record to me where the appurtenant water rights, where on the property they should, historically have been applied. There's some mysterious area here that is entitled to 6.4 acres of water and it would be interesting to see if it overlays the high-value farmland or the 36a soils thereby making it high-value farmland. I also, in my written comments in front of the hearings officer, and then again last night, submitted some examples of small Deschutes County farms that are operating with very similar soils and access to agricultural water. These are farms that are less than 20 acres in size, that are productive, that are some of, I would like to think, our collective favorite things about living here is access to fresh food. access to locally grown food. And so I'd really like to see Deschutes County take the perspective of believing in the viability of small farms in Central Oregon rather than a posture that small farms are like, I don't know, a folly in Deschutes County. We don't believe that's true. And we think that the subject property is suitable for farm use and has agricultural potential, should be considered agricultural land. Turning to Goal 14 and the comprehensive plan conflict at 3.3.1, I definitely agree with Mr. Kobach. This is an evolving area of law, a lot of case law coming out of Deschutes County at the moment, including from appeals between Landwatch and Mr. Kobach's clients. I would start by noting that just last Wednesday, so a week ago, Luba issued a final opinion on the McKenzie Meadows goal exception appeal. less than a week ago is issued at the end of the day. And that sort of further affirmed the idea that DCCP 3.3.1 does conflict with the MUA zone when it's overlaid over new non-resource lands. I believe that opinion in concert with BCL essentially knocks down all of the findings and alternative findings that the hearings officer recommended back in June prior to both of these Luba final orders or remands as it were. And so I think we are left at this point with the potential proposed condition of approval that was brought forth by the applicant on Friday, on August 21. Given that this idea was only proposed on Friday, We still have questions and concerns about whether a quasi-judicial zone change can be conditioned in such a way that limits certain uses or dimensional sizes within the zone. I think that it's a novel issue based on the research I've done. I looked high and low for Luba case law and I didn't see any that was pointed to by Mr. Kobach or in other resources saying that, hey, this has already been done and it is permitted in the state of Oregon or more specifically Deschutes County. I wrote about this briefly in our comments last night, but one of the criteria for a quasi-judicial zone change in Deschutes County is that the proposed zone or the subject property needs to be a good fit for the proposed zone. And so what we have here is a rezoning that is proposing a zone and then modifying the zone therein. So it really makes me wonder if, if this zone is a good fit for the subject property. And Deschutes County doesn't have an enormous amount of local criteria that need to be satisfied in order to approve a quasi-judicial rezoning. In some ways, it feels like it's become a bit of a formality at the local level. And we spend a lot of time arguing about state law issues, but I would really like to see Deschutes County look at the criteria under 18136 and be thoughtful about whether it meets the local criteria as well. And in any case, as far as the condition of approval, I think it's an open question about whether that is permitted for quasi-judicial zone changes. And so as a result, given that it was just proposed on Friday and that we have new case law out of Luba on Wednesday, less than a week ago, Landwatch would request that the the record be held open so that I can do a little bit more research. I appreciate Mr. Kobach's critique of the concerns I raised last night, and I would like to look into them further. And with that, I'll take any questions you might have. Are there any questions?

Mr. Hayek, I have not had much of a chance to review the examples, the small farm examples that you shared with us. Can you speak a little bit about those? Just kind of general characterization or key lessons learned about how a small acreage with only a certain amount of decent soils can be a viable farm.

Yeah, thank you for that question, Chair Chang. Respectfully, I would just start by saying that it is not Landwatch's burden to carry to say that, you know, to develop a small farm business plan for the subject property, we think that it is the applicant's burden. That said, Landwatch has spent time sort of, we've seen the case law evolving around Goal 3 here, and we want to be a full good faith participant in that and not just saying no, no, no without providing evidence. We have spent time analyzing Deschutes County small farms. We have a list where we've looked at the soils on these small farms, taken publicly available data about what farm uses they're conducting therein. And so essentially what I provided last night What I provided back in May was a list of apparent farm practices taking place in the area and some confirmed farm uses by the county. The properties to the northwest that Mr. Kobach actually, I think, referenced earlier were a proposed plan amendment zone change that was actually rejected by Deschutes County. I think it was in 2014. I think Commissioner DeBone was on the decision at the time. And a small sliver of the western portion of the subject property was actually part of that decision at the time. What I submitted last night is five different farms that have similar soils and are operating on 20 acres or less. They have 36A soils. Some of them have 58C. At least one farm that I saw is entirely 58C. So these are the same Gosney rock outcropping soils that... are rated class seven and eight and are being held up in this instance as non-agricultural soils. And yeah, so our position is that There are very similarly situated farms that are managing to conduct farm use. People are finding it reasonable and worthwhile to conduct farm use on those properties. We definitely don't submit that they're identical to the subject property, but we do believe there's substantial evidence that farm use is practicable, that the subject property is suitable for farm use.

Thank you. Going along my earlier line of thought about senior water rights, do you have any observations for me about which irrigation districts these farms are in?

Some of them are in close proximity. I would be happy to supply more information if that would be helpful for your decision, assuming the record is able to be left open. I believe they are Swally, Arnold, and COID, but that is just off of my...

yeah i recollection well swally swally and cod have these very senior water rights and kind of bear out this i i mean i i i feel like there is a lot of agriculture that is happening um because senior water rights were established at first um because you know logically if you were to go back in time and lay out irrigation districts and, you know, give priority, we would have given North Unit priority first. But, you know, it's probably the best soils in the DeBasin, in the Upper Deschutes Basin, and has the least senior water rights. So... there's gonna have to be some alignment of these things and some consideration that you know in the near future farmers with junior irrigation rights it may not matter how good the soil they have but they may not be able to farm anymore and people with more senior water rights are going to have opportunities to farm regardless of whether they have good soil or not. It's a dilemma for the community.

We agree it's something that is on our mind and something we discuss often and hope to be part of making a better plan for Deschutes County going forward. Thank you.

Any further questions or thoughts? Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Appreciate you. Okay. At this time, applicant rebuttal.

Thank you, Commissioner Chang, board members. Chris Kobach again. Just a few brief comments. One is about the burden of proof shifting. I'm going to start there because I think that Luba in the BCL case actually just clarified this and said it's not enough just to show that other properties may be able to do farm activities that you identify. All the applicant has to do to create the presumption is show that it's not suitable for grazing. Because as Luba explained, the factors that go into suitability on grazing are often the same factors you would consider as a reasonable farmer for any other farm activity. So that's the rebuttable presumption. Now, the opponents have to come in, and as Luba explained, they have to present some evidence that the specific site is suitable. So we've never argued that small-scale farming is not suitable. feasible in Deschutes County or even in this area. As I've said, there are other lands that are more suitable for it that appear to have some small-scale farming. We don't know about their motivations because that's private, but we do know that there was no analysis done on this specific property other than our expert. who said, and my client, there are small areas of 36 soil interspersed with a lot of rock and gosney. It's not like you have one area where you could go in and farm. So his problem, and he identified these as a practitioner, is how do you farm that with your equipment when you've got 36 pockets here and there very small? How do you successfully and feasibly irrigate these little areas, even if you can get irrigation? You're going to have multiple irrigation systems. So you have to... And I think just taking up on Luba, their analysis makes a lot of sense. You have to look at the specific property and say... It is feasible to do that same activity that this other person is doing based on these specific site facts. And there are no site specific facts other than what our people, our experts and my client put in. He went out to the 36 areas and you have photographs of them. It's not as LandWatch portrays it as this cleared, vacant, beautiful soil. It's rock. He took pictures. My client submitted pictures of the 36 C areas. It's all rock. So you're not going to avoid what Mr. Jacobs said you have to go through to try to convert this. And with a small scale farm, I think we can all agree, small scale, smaller profit margin. So I think it's even more important if you're going to do small scale farming. that you start with something that's already going. As Mr. Jacobs said, he bought a farm that was already going because you can't afford the upfront cost to take something that's fallow and vacant and rocky and doesn't hold water and convert it to what you want. You just can't make that happen. So that and the burden and the evidence, I think that's really important. The irrigation, I agree, it's a problem. You see, you drive around Deschutes County and you can tell there's people that are irrigating on bad soil because you have to make beneficial use or you lose your water right.

And the other thing is that accordingly, I've been told that 45% of COID is flood irrigating. Now, if those are small parcels, it makes sense. It could be efficient, but, you know, that's still really huge. And then when you drive...

on this property, it would not be a flood irrigation. There's no water there. And furthermore, there is no history of and we look, there is no history of ever irrigating this property. The only history we could find is in 1990 something. Somebody got a conditional use permit for a non farm dwelling. which kind of indicates if you read that they they went through and said there really isn't a farmable property. We don't want to use it for farming. We want a non farm parcel on it. They couldn't even make that go. Like I said, there was evidence that that blast to get utilities in that foundation was abandoned. It's still sitting there. So the property, this property, I guess to the point I'm making is Again, you have to look at the site-specific information, this specific property. It's not like other properties in the area. It's got unique rock features that make it impractical or infeasible to do any kind of farming. And it's going to be a challenge to do anything on it, but MUA 10 gives opportunities, as I said, to do that. As far as the condition, I know you can impose a condition on a quasi-judicial zone because we did it in McKenzie Meadow. Commissioner Chang, you asked for a condition that limited development in certain areas on that property. And we put that, we agreed to that, we put it in. That got challenged, but that condition never got challenged. So I think it's utterly appropriate to address an issue that has been raised in the interim with a condition of approval that will, as I said, a belt and suspenders. I think we have what we need, but this will absolutely ensure that in between now and acknowledgement, the minimum parcel size is 10 acres. And that's all you can do. Then if you want to wait and proceed under the new plan, then there may be different options. So I think that's on that. And on irrigation, back to irrigation before. Commissioner Adair asked me the question. I'm saying there is a lot of waste, I think. People use their water because they have to use it to keep it and they don't want to get rid of it. There's not a perfect answer to that. I agree. It's a big issue for the county and probably for the state and probably for other parts of the country. But what we can do here, what we know we can do is this lease program. It's at least one step where you make sure that you're not wasting water on land just to keep your rights. You're not using it. You're not wasting it on rock. And so we I can tell you, my client would fully support additional programs to preserve water for good agricultural land. It's not his goal is to waste water. It's just it's a waste to use it on this property. That's our position. So, again, I think we've really covered all of the requirements. There are some policy issues that we just can't. In a quasi-judicial application, I don't think it's appropriate to resolve or attempt to resolve. I think there is a process to resolve these bigger issues, and the county and citizens all over need to get together and do that. But right now, we apply the law to this one, and I think this application should be approved, and that's what I would respectfully request the board to do.

Well, if you see on page seven of the Lenwatch letter today, they do question whether applying for a condition of approval is permissible. Well, you're saying from Mackenzie Meadows that we did do that. Not the same condition. Right. No, but I mean, unapplicable. We did it there.

We opposed the condition that limited development for the scenic area and for the stream corridor. The stream. So we actually limited the uses available on that. And I think MMV actually supports, Luba's decision supports my condition, proposed condition, because throughout that opinion, you could see when they're talking about the problems with that rezoning, Luba said multiple times, We suppose a condition of approval or some restriction on other, because the issue there was the rezoning didn't limit it to just this transition zone. So they said, well, if we grant this, if we approve this, you could do any kind of MUA 10 use on it. That's not consistent with what you said, a transition zone. You have no limitation, but perhaps a condition of approval or some other restriction in the county decision will fix that. So I think LUBA is endorsing exactly what we're proposing here is, reasonable steps to make sure there's consistency, make sure the applicable law is applied to these future applications. That's all we're asking.

OK. Any further questions?

I did find it fascinating that they said 2.3 pairs. Well, no. You can't have a third of a cow and a calf. But anyway, interesting. Yeah. Like, really? No, I think it's two or it's three. I would agree. It doesn't work.

Okay. If there's no further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kobach. Okay. At this time, closing arguments from staff or closing comments from staff.

Staff doesn't have any closing comments, but if you have further questions, I'm available.

I mean, I would, on this question of imposing conditions as part of a quasi-judicial decision, I'd be curious whether CDD staff or county legal has any thoughts on whether that can or can't be done.

Yeah, we've had lots of thoughts on that. Been wrestling with it a bit since the BCL decision. Short answer is we think it's acceptable, but I'll defer to Stephanie Marshall here.

Good morning, Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel. Yes, I also reviewed the BCL decision and Mackenzie Meadows' decision, and I had a similar takeaway from the Applicant's Council, which is it seems like this is the direction that LUBA is almost suggesting. And, you know, I have not seen anything that would say otherwise. You know, it seems to me to be reasonable. I mean, Luba's, you know, I can't quote Luba directly, but in the McKenzie Meadow case, they essentially said, you know, this is open to all individuals. MUA 10 uses without restriction. If there had been a restriction, you know, that would be a different story. So I think that this is a logical outgrowth of LUBA's implied direction, if you will, in recent cases.

um i guess to kind of further you know for this further explore this idea you know my issue with with this is that we are trying to uh decide whether a condition is allowable or not that i um at the policy level i disagree with right i actually want us to be able to do clustering uh you know and and you know Yeah, put five units in a little corner of this property and keep the rest blank slate for future urbanization. Are there ways to draft these kinds of conditions that preserve opportunities to adjust to future clustering policy if that kind of policy is created?

Yes, and I did review the applicant's proposed condition of approval. came from staff and the language in that condition, if I remember correctly, says the then existing comprehensive plan. So the 2040 plan, we will see if that's appealed, but that does have provisions. The 3.3.1 policy was moved to the housing chapter, which is chapter 10. And now the new plan, again, if not appealed and acknowledged, has those four, 10.1, .1, 2, 3, and then 4 would be what the applicant could rely on, you know, so that there would no longer be a conflict between the plan and the applicant. the zoning provisions which allow for clustering. That's kind of been the outgrowth of the Destiny Court decision is applicants in the county have been wrestling with the consistency or inconsistency between comp plan and those zoning provisions that allow, it's not even development per se, it's division of land, which is separate from actually What you're putting on the ground. So the division of that land in a manner that would have like an open space area and smaller residential lots that would still meet goal 14, et cetera, et cetera, that could be addressed. Actually, it is addressed in the 2040 plan, which is not acknowledged yet. But getting back to your question, my read of the proposed condition of approval is that it references the then existing comprehensive plan. So if 2040 plan never gets acknowledged, then yeah, we're stuck with potentially 10 acre lots. If 2040 plan is acknowledged, you know, if there are no appeals or, you know, whatever that process looks like, then that applicant could rely on that condition of approval and not be restricted to 10 acre sized lots with a cluster or planned unit development. Okay.

And I mean, speculating about future policymaking, if we bring back the idea of an urbanization overlay that was kicked around a few years ago, going a half mile or a mile out from the city and an urban growth boundary and saying, you know, we... we would allow development of RR10 or MUA10 in a clustered way, that would similarly not conflict with this condition or the condition could be written to accommodate that if we say pass that in February 2027.

Yeah, again, you know, without speculating, because, you know, depend on like how the how the how the overlay would be drafted, etc, etc. But you're going to have to amend the comprehensive plan. So that reference back to the comprehensive plan. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah.

Okay. Thank you for walking me through that. I don't have any further questions. Right. Well, if there are no further questions from commissioners, then we can proceed to the discussion of whether we want to continue the hearing to a date and time certain, close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain, close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined, or close the hearing and commence deliberations. I guess one question for staff before we get into that. How are we looking in terms of calendar and shot clock and things like that for this application?

With respect to the 150-day clock, this is not subject to that provision.

Okay.

Okay, no.

So with what we've heard today, I could see closing the record and scheduling deliberations as a starting point here. So there has been a request for leaving the written record open so we could discuss that, but possibly closing the record and scheduling deliberations.

So if we close it, we're still allowed then to review the letter from Landwatch, correct?

I do believe so.

If we leave the written record open.

Okay. So we have to leave it open. Yes.

I was proposing that, I mean, it's on file. We can do a little bit more homework by closing the record and reading what's on the file, you know, in reference to what we heard today. Or if we leave the written record open, it'll go 7-7-7.

I was just going to clarify, the letter came in before the hearing. So if you close the written record, you can consider anything that's... We have it.

Okay. Excellent.

I would still be interested in hearing about... augmenting the information that's already, that was just submitted by LandWatch with information about irrigation districts and the seniority of rights in the examples that are provided. So I think to receive that and to be able to consider that, we would need to leave the written record open. So that's my preference, but this is a majority decision.

Well, it would definitely make the different tax odds. It would add information. We could do that.

So there's potentially support for option two, close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain. What kind of a calendar would we assign to that? Mr. Brown, if I could get my slides pulled back up.

So under a 7-7-7 open record period, we would be looking at, excuse me,

Okay.

It's all over the place.

Under an assumed 777 open record period, we would be looking at new evidence and testimony due by Wednesday, September 2nd at 4 p.m., any rebuttal evidence and testimony by Wednesday, September 9th at 4 p.m., and then the final legal argument afforded just to the applicant by Wednesday, September 16th at 4 p.m. Okay.

Does that sound acceptable?

That would be fine.

Okay, let's proceed with that.

Thank you. So now that the open record period is set, staff would like to schedule with board admin staff and look for deliberations likely late September to early October, and would like to provide instructions for the open record period. So all submittals should be sent directly to me, Dan DiMarzo. Any electronic submittals can be emailed to me. My email is dan.dimarzo at deschutes.org. Please note Deschutes County does not take responsibility for retrieving information from a website or a personal cloud storage service device. And finally, all electronic submittals must be submitted to the county server by 4 p.m. on the date of the deadline.

Great. Okay.

Well, if there's no further questions or comments from commissioners, we can wrap this up then. That's the timeline. Thank you very much, Dan.

Thank you, commissioners.

We'll see you all in a few weeks. Okay. At this time, we'll move on to item number nine, a public hearing related to revisions to Deschutes County Code Chapter 8.30, Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area and 8.30.100 Appendix A, the Ambulance Service Area Plan.

Tom Kuhn, Deschutes County Public Health, and here in my capacity is Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Administrator. Nice to see you all again. And I don't have any other colleagues with me at this time. Hello, Commissioners. We are here today for the public hearing to consider amendments to Deschutes County Code Chapter 8.30, Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area, also referred to as ASA. and Chapter 8.30.100 Appendix A, Ambulance Service Area Plan. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board will deliberate and hopefully approve the first reading of Ordinance Number 2026-016. County Code Chapter 8.30 was updated by county legal with ASA administrator support in order to create clearer complaint and enforcement processes, improve definitions, improve information exchange between the ASA and the commissioners, and improve consistency between the code and plan. The code is exclusively governed and regulated by Deschutes County. County Code Chapter 8.30.100 Appendix A, the ASA Plan, was adopted by Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Committee in conjunction with the ASA administrator, myself, county legal, local EMS-related providers, and a higher contractor in order to ensure compliance with the relevant Oregon administrative rules. The plan has been updated for multiple reasons. It had not been updated for almost 27 years or more. Oregon Health Authority Emergency Medical Services Program is enforcing compliance with OAR 333-260-0020, which is the procedures for adoption and approval of ambulance service area plans. Furthermore, the plan was not consistent with the code in several ways that were identified. It had not incorporated changes to best practices or the law. Code and plan as currently existed created an enhanced potential for liability and difficulty in enforcement. Major changes made to the ASA plan include using approved OHA emergency medical services definitions, citations, and sections aligned with Oregon administrative rules. It also now provides changes with updated maps that are required to be part of the plans. And we also added subappendix A where the plans will be stored in addition to a list of specialized services by the local ASA providers and also contact information. And also now at this point has enforcement language only within the code rather in both places to prevent the chance of error. So the plan only refers to the code when it comes to enforcement. The updated plan as written is in full compliance with OAR 333-260-0020 per OHA EMS at this time. We recommend approval of the first reading of ordinance number 2026-016. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Okay.

Are there questions or thoughts before we jump into the public hearing?

I'll just acknowledge I took that item for the work session on Monday, and so I didn't bring it back down here. But we did study it in depth on Monday, and I was flipping through it and prepared. So I just don't have those papers in my hand today.

I have it.

Yeah, as I said, I had it with Monday's packet. That's what I did.

No, that's amazing when you said 27 years. Well, I'm glad they finally – they're bringing it back up again.

Yeah, that's as far back as I could look and find records.

Wow. And tightening it up. I mean, there's a lot of changes in here, you know, for this incredibly rapidly evolving, you know, area of public services that I'm sure there's a lot of things that we need to think about now that, you know, we couldn't have even imagined 27 years ago. So with that, are you all ready to go to a public hearing?

Please.

Okay. At this time, we will open a public hearing on revisions to Deschutes County Code Chapter 8.30, Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area and 8.30.100, Appendix A, the Ambulance Service Area Plan. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide comment or testimony during this hearing. And Eric, is there anyone online with their virtual hand raised? Okay. Seeing none, we can close the public hearing and proceed to deliberations.

So I'll acknowledge we have had kind of enforcement questions in the past. So there's history here. But also, you know, we want to thank all those ambulance service area providers, the local jurisdictions, the fire agencies with ambulance service that do take care of the calls for service in our community. One of the dynamics here is the cost of doing business. It's like, you know, here's congratulations, you're the ASA and here's your footprint. But the cost is going way up, too. And this happened. We have multiple. kind of five-year operating levies on top of each other in the Lapine Southern Deschutes County District right now. So, you know, funding is always going to be an issue. But we do need to work together on this and communicate openly and honestly about the level of service and expectations. And then also back from our 911 public safety answering point, that's where everything starts. So a great relationship just getting these dispatched out calls for help. And as I say, we did have a work session on this Monday and kind of talked about it in depth.

And as I mentioned on Monday, the four to five calls that are going to the fire stations for urgent care questions, hopefully that urgent care facility will have life and accommodate some of those issues so that the ambulances, well, they're there and they're ready to go.

I want to express appreciation for all of the franchisees who provide ambulance service in our community as well. And also express concern. Commissioner DeBone raised funding constraints. Most of our fire districts don't collect any tax monies to provide ambulance service. They are pretty much entirely dependent on insurance coverage or patient pays type model in order to provide ambulance service. And there's a lot of discussion these days about the $1 billion of Medicaid funding that is going to evaporate for the state of Oregon. One billion dollars per year that's going to evaporate starting next year. And I am gravely concerned about how that will affect our fire districts as they try to provide ambulance service. If the person that they need to go pick up because they absolutely are having a medical emergency, you know, has no coverage, um, because, uh, we, we've, uh, cast so many thousands of people off of Medicaid, uh, in, in, in the years to come. So, um, yes, just, you know, an appreciation for the work that, uh, our ambulance service providers provide. And, um, you know, just a recognition of the challenging and probably worsening financial constraints that you're going to be operating under. Okay. So we've had our hearing. We've made some comments. Are we ready to proceed to a motion?

Move approval of first reading of ordinance number 2026-016 by title only.

I'll second it.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner Dubon? Yes. Chair votes yes. And so we can proceed to a first reading now? Do we need an additional motion for the first reading or that's?

That's sufficient and then it'll come back in two weeks for second reading and adoption.

Okay. Okay. So, first reading. Before the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, an ordinance amending Chapter 8.30, Ambulance Service Area, of the Deschutes County Code and amending Appendix A to Chapter 8.30, the Ambulance Service Area Plan for Deschutes County, Ordinance No. 2026-016. All right. We'll see you in a couple of weeks for second reading.

Yes, thank you very much. And I know all the ASA providers really thank your support of this. It's been a really large collaborative effort.

Tom, thank you for your leadership. I know you've been behind this since I've been here. So thank you so much.

And it's wrapping up at the end of the summer.

Yes, and there will be more things related to the ASA coming up in the future. As I've noticed, my volume of calls and contacts has steadily increased over the recent years.

What kind of things?

Just all across the board. It's not necessarily consistent, but I'm just noticing there is definitely more public interest in what's going on with ambulance service in the area.

Okay.

Well, yeah. Thanks to you, Tom. Thanks to all the members of the committee for doing the very heavy lift on overhauling a very old plan and freshening that up for us, modernizing it so that we can move forward.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Moving to item number 10, letter of support for Bend Urban Renewal grant application.

And commissioners, Chris Doty, our road department director, is available online. He was juggling a few things this morning, and here he is. And then I'll turn it over to Chris to take it from here.

All right. Good morning, board. Chris Doty, road department director. Apologies for not being available. Had a little bit of a scheduling conflict. With me, with you in the room, should be Jonathan Taylor. Is Jonathan there? All right. He's with the Bend Urban Renewal Agency. I'm going to walk you through the staff report and what we're asking of the board today. Jonathan's going to be there to answer any questions. We're here today to request board signature on a letter of support for an application by the Urban Renewal Agency for planning dollars. from Business Oregon's Industrial Site Loan Fund. This is a request of the Urban Rural Agency, not of Deschutes County, but it's a letter of support. So with this funding, the agency would like to evaluate and analyze a potential extension of Coulee Road to Deschutes Market Road to provide additional access to the Juniper Ridge area and kind of complete the transportation grid. The extension of Cooley has been identified as a low priority project on the county's TSB since 2012. It's not located in the city limits or the urban growth boundary. This is about two thirds of a mile of Cooley Road that would connect Deschutes Market to Cooley. And the primary reason that's been in our planning documents board has been really to preserve the right of way for that arterial to arterial connection, not necessarily as a project that Deschutes County would seek to construct, but one that protects the right-of-way for eventual urban expansion. County staff has shared concerns with the city regarding the availability of capacity and the general capabilities of Deschutes Market Road corridor to serve as that next connection to Juniper Ridge. However, It's our understanding that a portion of this planning work that these dollars will be used for will include analysis, you know, funded by this forgivable loan, which will evaluate the capacity and really answer those questions that we have in connecting Juniper Ridge to Deschutes Market Road. And so with that, your signature on this letter really supports, you know, the effort of the agency to pursue funding to conduct that analysis work. in addition to other things, but not as a commitment necessarily to move forward with construction. So I just wanted to make that clear. We're floating a balloon here, analyzing what this looks like, and perhaps additional phasings as well, but not necessarily endorsing this and moving forward just yet. So we'll find out when we get to the end. So with that, that kind of includes my summary of this letter and the ask. If you have any questions for myself, Jonathan, if you have anything to add, please take your turn.

Chris, one question I'd like to ask is that this connection has shown up in TSPs or other plans for a number of years. Can you just talk about the way that it has showed up and the way we've discussed it in past plans?

Yeah. As far as I can tell, it was back to 2012 it was added, primarily as just kind of a logical connection of the extension of Cooley to Deschutes Market. That's a city arterial connecting to a county rural arterial. It's been identified as a low priority project in RTSP, so it's not one that, like I said, that we have any interest in moving forward with construction. Rather, as is really protecting the right-of-way so that nothing gets built on it on a very logical connection. The city actually utilized this corridor, this right-of-way, for extension of their sewer interceptor. So on that road, eventual road alignment exists, you know, their sewer line and their sewer access road today that cuts through Juniper Ridge and serves areas beyond that. So again, it's really just kind of protect, you know, from our perspective, we're protecting that right-of-way for eventual urban expansion, a logical connection of the system connecting arterials to arterials.

For clarity, there is an existing right-of-way? It's an undeveloped right-of-way? Is that what it is?

The right-of-way does not exist. I believe the city purchased an easement from the property owner in the location of the eventual right-of-way connection.

Yep. So the city owns an easement and is the easement for more than just the water and sewer lines or, you know, does that easement cover a road?

That I don't have off the top of my head. I presume it was for just for the sewer line.

Maybe that's a question for the city to answer. Here we go. Thanks for joining us.

Jonathan Taylor, City of Bend. The easement only covers the northern interceptor, which is the 12-inch water main that goes from basically Deschutes Market up and over and down to Costco.

Okay.

But it's implied that that may be about the location of a future road. Right.

And that'll be, I'm sure that'll be part of what is studied or analyzed is acquisition of adequate right-of-way or Eastman.

Okay. And then, so this, it's called a forgivable loan. What are the terms? And it would be a full responsibility of the Urban Renewal Agency? Right.

Yeah, so there's two paths for this one particular infrastructure loan. There's the actual project building, which goes up to about $9 million, and you have to finance that over however many years. This is the forgivable, which is up to $250. When we complete it, we don't have to pay back that loan. But let's say we don't complete the transportation analysis, it would be the urban renewal agency that would just cut the check that year.

Yeah, so completion of the analysis is the qualifying factor. Yep.

And Jonathan, do you, you may or may not know this, I mean, would the city envision completing this whole segment all the way to Deschutes Market Road in one fell swoop? Or would there be like a piece, you know, so that you could better serve Juniper Ridge and then another piece later on?

Probably the latter because Cooley Road extension from east to west has been a multi-phase project with sewer line updates as well. So if we decide to move forward and the county is in support, if we get to that point about project construction, then we'd lay out some sort of phased approach. But in speaking with your staff, if the impacts are too great, then that would be something we'd bring back for further consideration. But there are also other opportunities for access to Juniper Ridge that goes north to US-97 from Kimberline or the proposed Kimberline Drive. But we don't have rights-of-way, and also BNSF is there. So as you all know, working with railroads, it's like an act of Congress. So it's easier to work with an existing right-of-way.

Yes, an act of Congress. Who could have thought?

Is that little band of untreated land, is that the easement that we're talking about?

Yes, that's the sewer line. Okay. Utility access road that sits on top of that.

Got it. Okay.

So for orientation, this is Les Schwab right here. You can see my cursor. It's built. Cooler Road's built to here, and this segment would be within Juniper Ridge. And it's about two-thirds of a mile is this piece that would make that connection to Deschutes Market.

Good job, Chris.

This is just the analysis, though, because, I mean, there'll be implications of doing this. Looks like some private property in there also.

And if this becomes a priority of both the county commission and also the city of Ben, there's phasing that we'd have to do and stuff like that.

Yeah, no, and there'll need to be a lot of thought about how you connect in... uh, you know, a major road into just, you know, into shoots market road, which is, was not, at least it's not currently engineered to accommodate on, you know, a huge amount of traffic coming in off of Cooley road in, in that spot. So we, um, it's good to do the planning and the analysis. Um, yeah. Any further questions?

I move to authorize the board signature on a letter of support for the ISFL grant on behalf of the Burb Bend Urban Renewal Agency to evaluate the extension of Coulee Road to Deschutes Market Road.

I'll second it.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? I guess one big picture thing I would say is that, you know, Juniper Ridge was a long time ago, it was county property that was, you know, that turned over to the city to facilitate expansion and economic growth and development. And it's exciting to see that, you know, it's exciting to see the work in Juniper Ridge proceed and, and, You know, here we are back again, however many decades later, talking about, you know, working together to facilitate urban growth and economic development in that area. So celebrating the ongoing partnership with the city. All right. A call for the weekend. Yes. Commissioner Adair. Mr devote yes and share votes, yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chris.

Right on to item number 11. ARPA funds re categorization and allocation authorization.

Morning commissioners Laura scundrick management analyst.

camp sparks budget and financial planning manager.

So in March, we were here requesting the recategorization of $607,391 in ARPA funds as we were working through some timing issues with one of our subrecipients, Deschutes River Conservancy. That was approved by the board in March. This change would have increased the amount that was obligated to the revenue replacement category. Unfortunately, unlike other ARPA categories, the obligation to revenue replacement cannot be increased in our reporting to the Treasury. We claimed that amount in April 2025 and were unable to change it. So we are here today requesting that the board actually reverses that recategorization and the funds will return to their original categories. Also, should the DRC or any other subrecipient notify us that they're unable to meet the expenditure deadline by December 31st of this year, We are requesting for your authorization to allocate up to $330,000 in ARPA funds to the community violence intervention category. This category includes several programs within the district attorney's office. and is already an existing ARPA project. This pre-authorization would allow staff the flexibility to utilize ARPA funds up to that amount in the event that we receive a late notice from a subrecipient and that would prevent those funds from having to be returned to the Treasury if they are not spent by that deadline. With that, I'll open it up for any questions.

I support the flexibility that we're looking for here.

I'm really excited to see that on-farm efficiency work happen. So I hope that the Deschutes River Conservancy is able to get a lot of that work completed before the deadline. But having an excellent kind of backup use for those funds is a good thing.

I'll move to recategorize revenue replacement funds of $607,391 back to original categories.

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. I believe there was another possible motion.

Yes, I'll move to authorize up to $330,000 of ARPA funds to allocate towards community violence intervention projects from other categories as needed to the expenditure deadline.

And I will second it. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Thanks for being so proactive to be able to dial this in. I mean, these are options at this point, but it'll provide clarity for making sure we're not sending dollars back.

But isn't that amazing how long it's taken? Didn't we do this in like 21, like in October of 21? Honestly. And, you know, some things really could have really done a lot of good. And it's, isn't it five years later?

Yeah, well, this on-farm efficiency work was basically piggybacked on the Smith Rock to Kingsway canal piping for the Pyle Butte Canal. So they basically were all teed up and ready to go as soon as that was finished. But that took a lot longer than anticipated. So it's... It's the right way to do on-farm efficiency is to come in behind a canal piping project when you now have access to pressurized water. But they just had to wait until that piece was done. So it's unfortunate. Yeah. And so on this second motion, this is contingent. The funds would go to that secondary purpose, contingent on they're not being used by the primary. Okay. Exactly. Just wanted to double check that.

You guys did hear, I think I looked it up from 2019, inflation has gone up over 30% since 2019. I mean, I know that's why so many people are having such a horrible time with affordability, having that huge of inflation in a really short period of time. Incredible. I mean, we lived with inflation in the 70s. It was horrible. The interest rate was like 14% on your house mortgage. But the houses were, what, $54,000. So, you know, it's really that impact. All that money being spent.

We're ready to call for the vote. Commissioner DeBone?

Yes. You made the motion. The second one.

You made the second motion? Yes, I did. Okay, I'm sorry.

Write it down.

Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Chair votes yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Nice to see you guys. Nice to see you.

Item number 12, FY2027 membership in the Eastern Oregon Counties Association.

Commissioners, we received the invoice on an annual basis for the Eastern Oregon Counties Association. The annual cost is $12,500, given the formula that is within the grant, which pertains to the amount of PILT dollars that we receive. In our agenda conference, we discussed bringing this to the board for consideration if the board wishes to continue its membership with the Eastern Oregon Counties Association.

So Commissioner Chang, last night you said that the sheriff asked to have an agenda item a couple of years ago during homeless discussions and 60 people showed up. You didn't know about it. I was probably the chair at the time and you felt like there was You know, funny business going on, riling up the people to come in and be upset about something.

Oh, no. What I was concerned about was that it was a premeditated effort to have impromptu public hearing, and it wasn't noticed on the agenda at the time that the agenda was released. And then it was... suddenly appeared on our agenda at the very end of the week.

I would just acknowledge that that was a very acute issue. Southern Bend, the China Hat area, people are, you know, shots and fires and very aggressive behavior in people's backyards. There was people that are very upset about that.

So that was managing a situation. I am not questioning the validity of the concerns of the people. I am, you know, The question that was asked to us at County College was about how chair, the chair position was decided. And you made accusations to me that you did not feel supported or safe with me serving as chair. So I felt it necessary to point out that the chair position had been used against me

uh... yeah inappropriate ways though uh... i apologize and i think your perception is going way beyond the intention of whatever i've been doing as as a chair in the past so then you're on you know sisters individual sister indivisible sisters calling out the large rural land counties, livestock that are not like us. They wanted to move the Oregon border. Maybe we shouldn't be part of the Eastern Oregon Counties Association because we're not like them. Talk about not wanting to bring people together and serve the people of Oregon. I mean, you're going to be in a pretty powerful position here, and you are picking a fight with all of Eastern Oregon by doing that.

I'm just saying that you're asking people to come here.

Maybe we should get people at this meeting. I mean, that's exactly the kind of stuff you're doing.

I didn't ask people to come here.

Yeah, but by dropping it out there like that, that's exactly the intention. You should be upset because Commissioner Chang thinks that other commissioners aren't doing what's reasonable.

I share with people every week items of interest on the agenda, and I give a little bit of commentary.

What they choose to do with that is they're... You're actively doing something you're accusing me of. They are actively doing it, and you're accusing me of it.

No. That's what it looks like from my point of view. That sheriff's item, that was added to our agenda. Yeah, I can apologize for that because that was not actively trying to... What people can do... People are allowed to come during public comment and talk about whatever they want.

Whenever... We're opening up every meeting at the very beginning to let public comment happen on all kinds of issues these days. Given that they're on the agenda, we're trying to do the people's business.

That's right. Riling people up, trying to get them in here. I am not riling people up. I am notifying people about what is on our agenda.

and providing them with... And trying to explain how... Yeah, no, that's fine. I'm just pointing out.

There's a huge difference between... There's a huge difference between... The way you do it and the way I do it. Between people... The right way and the wrong way. Between people exercising their rights to provide public comments... And adding something to our agenda at the last minute.

Did you just hold on to that for all these years? I've never heard that. I'm not holding on to the fact that, uh-oh, I might have offended somebody by dealing with that tense situation. Yeah.

Well, I have a whole lot of examples of ways. You've been just making a list of them?

Maybe we should communicate more openly here in the front of the people on the board meeting.

In the meantime, these these issues came up. These issues came up.

So I'm pointing out that he's picking a fight with Eastern. These issues shouldn't be part of this group because they're not like us.

Let's finish the discussion of the chair situation and then we can move on to the EOCA. You were the one who started the discussion of the of the chair position.

OK, so I know it was a good question last night. Yeah. Okay, so now...

Multiple times, multiple times during our deliberations on who was going to serve as chair in the last few years, I have brought up the way that there are items that are being added to the agenda at the last minute. I have brought up that the chair role was being wielded to silence me So don't tell me that I have never brought these issues up with you before. You just didn't want to hear them.

As the chair of the meeting, you have the authority to start the meeting, move through the agendas, and end the meeting. I sat there patiently and very respectfully listening to anything and everything you had to say. Yes, there's layers of politics to all we do. But you're holding on to a whole bunch of energy.

And the chair role has been used to block items from coming on our agenda, to put other items on at the last minute.

And that's why we're...

talking to make it to make me to make me raise things during other items that should have been that should have been discussed, which is your in open session that publicly noticed. OK, so that's if if if you want to if you want to leave it at that with the chair discussion, I continue to assert that the chair role has been used inappropriately to stifle discussion of items of concern to the community.

Well, I've been honored to serve doing the core business of Deschutes County Services. And yes, you do bring up items that, you know, aren't in the domain that I have seen in the past. And I'd say I'm patiently willing to listen and communicate with you.

And I would say that that is patently untrue. So back to that. You perceive it like that. That's a real shame. I have raised that on multiple occasions in the past. It's a shame that you have never, ever heard that, even though it has been stated to you very clearly in the past. So on to the Eastern Oregon Counties Association. My point, what I was conveying to people, to constituents who are interested in what's on our agenda, actually encouraging citizen engagement in the business of Deschutes County, letting people know what is on our agenda, and what we are deliberating about.

My point... Oregon counties that might want to go to Idaho. We should look out for these guys.

Yeah, my point was the membership of the Eastern Oregon Counties Association is by and large different than us. We are a very large population county. We have a mix of urban and rural issues. And the... primary focus of the Eastern Oregon Counties Association are things that are pretty irrelevant to us. Given that, I question whether it is appropriate to be sending them $12,500 of Deschutes County taxpayer money. to work on issues that are only of peripheral interest to Deschutes County. And I will say that again, and you all can vote to contribute to the EOCA again, and we'll have another discussion next year. So if you want to proceed with that, you can go ahead. These counties are not like us. they don't have i mean you know what i when i when i spoke to um uh um commissioner williams from lake county he said you know why are you opposing the the the reasons of these uh you know of these lands so that people can do you know some rural residences i said james we already have 30 000 dwellings outside of incorporated cities in deschutes county and he said what You know, then not only that. And then I said, you know, James, we have we have over 2000 vacant buildable lots in rural Deschutes County. He said, oh, right. So they they. have a very different set of issues that they're grappling with, very different constraints that they're grappling with than we do. And I find the items that are on the primary focus for the EOCA of limited utility and peripheral to the concerns of this large population, part urban, part rural county.

And I think it's really important that we all actually work together. Going through COVID, I saw all the funding going to Portland. Being on the letter with the EOCA, this PILT funding, they're a big proponent of PILT funding. And I think being a part of this group is actually, it's a positive thing. People in today's world, if we would work together more instead of being so, what is the word, uncompassionate. I think we could use a lot more compassion. And I believe that this is an excellent group to belong to. They care about all of Oregon.

If you want to thank a group for advocating for PILT funding for us, you can thank NACO. I do not see any significant value that EOCA is adding.

They actually made trips to D.C. They make trips there. I've been in the meetings with them.

They encourage people to attend. They encourage people to attend the NACO-organized PILT fly-ins.

Yes, and they go to... Did they organize those flights?

No.

No, they're there, and they've taken money from their counties that are incredibly more financially on a tight budget, and they actually take money, and they go there, and they fly there for it, and I think we have to... commend them and be thankful that they understand it. And to be part of that, I think it's incredibly important to use Dolly Parton's example of how she lived her life. You know, we can do this and we can make a positive difference for our Oregon community.

On that front, I'd be much happier using our $12,500 to send commissioners to Washington, D.C. to advocate for PILT during the NACO PILT fly-in than sending money to ELCA.

So there's another vision here, though. In Oregon, in our state land use system, urban growth boundary is very important, very sacred. And one of the things that I had come to years ago is that wouldn't it be wonderful if we could load balance this state? Some of these small incorporated communities, being able to have them thrive and be vibrant. High speed internet, home delivery, new construction, low cost of energy. We have got an opportunity to be able to load balance across eastern Oregon with the existing urban growth boundaries even. So there's huge opportunities to enjoy and celebrate the fact that driving an hour or two between these towns but having a little vibrant town with a scene and cafes and whatever is a huge opportunity for the state of Oregon. So man, I am looking to bridge this this state and to celebrate the urban rural frontier counties that we do have. And as I said, load balancing some of the housing opportunities. You know, we talk about how city of Bend needs to go from 75 to 100 to 140, 175,000 people. But what about other places where you go from five to six to 7,000 and all of a sudden it's just a wonderful balance to a community, old and young alike. So, man, that's a different world view.

Yeah. So Commissioner DeBone, you often advocate for letting the free market drive housing development. I think what I'm hearing you saying is we need some market distortion in order to drive development to some of these small counties that people have voted with their feet to leave. that investment has voted with their feet to leave. So that is a radically different tune. That is a radically different tune than...

at home delivery, you get the buzz going in one of these little places, and all of a sudden, the free market drives there.

You have data centers at some of these. Why is there no broadband in these places? Because the free market has determined that there is not a customer base to develop there, okay? So you are basically saying, out of one side of your mouth, that you want the free market to decide where housing is, and at the other side... Other side of your mouth that you want the free market not to decide.

Why do you need to take moments to tell me how wrong I am?

Because...

It's just sharing a vision, just a simple vision.

Call the question. Thank you.

Because we are arguing about whether we want to... It's a simple vision. A simple vision in support of investing in the EOCA. Yeah, I'm saying that that is not a... appropriate argument for why we should invest in the EOCA. So you're telling me I'm wrong? Well, I'm pointing out the inconsistency in policy principles that you repeatedly raise during our meetings. So you're telling me I'm wrong? Well, I'm telling you that if that's your argument for why we should invest in the EOCA, then I must be wrong. That it is a flawed and inconsistent... What words can you use to say, okay, I will make a motion to not participate in the EOCA this year.

Commissioner Adair, hopefully that's not too shocking for you. As I say, I've really enjoyed my partnership with Union County, Crook, Jefferson, Mollier, Klamath, Harney, Wallowa, Sherman, Gilliam, getting to know the commissioners all up and down, knowing that there's camaraderie in the high desert on the east side of the Cascades, and looking for those opportunities to help each one of those counties thrive and look for a positive future. But with this transition of a board, I don't feel comfortable writing this check and walking out the door.

And all of that camaraderie and interconnection and relationships with commissioners from across the state can continue to happen at AOC? Okay, if that's your position, then... That was a motion.

Not participating in the AOC, not, you know, sending a check this year.

I will second that motion. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we can call for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes, I'm not participating. Commissioner Adair?

No.

And Chair votes yes. Thank you for that discussion.

I mean, I had figured that out before I came here, knowing that, you know, I won't be here. There'll be a new board in a few months. And, you know, the offer will still be out there. But that'll have to be relationships by the next board of commissioners. And obviously, Commissioner Chang, you have your positions.

Yeah, and one of my suggestions, we could take up as this board, or you can hold those $12,500 available for the next board to evaluate. One of my recommendations would be that Deschutes County join the Community Renewable Energy Association. They have demonstrated tremendous value to us in the last few months in evaluating the proposals for SIPs or pursuing rural renewable energy development zone pathways for large renewable energy projects that are coming forward in Deschutes County. Is this under other items?

Where are we going now?

No, I'm just saying that that would be my suggestion on what we could do with these $12,500 instead. If you would like to discuss that at a future meeting, we could put it on the agenda. Otherwise, we can wait for the future board. All right, so now we can move on to other items. Are there any other items? Seeing none, we can move on to executive sessions.

We do not have an executive session today.

We have a placeholder on our agenda, but we have no executive sessions today. So at this time, we can adjourn the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you.