Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Between Yamhill County and the Oregon Health Authority for problem gambling, A&D 81 program element, effective upon execution, do I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

We have a motion to approve. Is there further discussion?

None.

Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes. On to item I3, consideration of approval of amendment number one to agreement 44300-00051389 between Yamhill County and the Oregon Health Authority, reducing behavioral health resource network or burn funding to $3,060,900 effective July 1st, 2026. I want to make just a note here that this is a reduction of $359,000 as a result of reduced marijuana tax revenue. It's not that there is reduced usage. It's that the price is lower, and so the tax revenue is lower. So I think originally we thought we were going to have a reduction of 30%, and it was only 12%. So this is what that is in reference to. So I would move approval. Is there any further discussion?

None.

Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. On to item I-4, consideration of authorizing county administrator to sign the final participation forms or related documents to include Yamhill County in the proposed National Opioid Settlement Agreement between Litigating Parties and Associated Pharmacies, Inc., and American Associated Pharmacies. J.M. Smith Corporation, Morrison Dickerson, Dixon, Company, LLC, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., North Carolina Mutual Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., and United Natural Foods and Super Value, collectively the remnant defendants settling and releasing all claims against the named parties arising out of the federal multi-district opioid litigation. And so that's basically the remaining opioid settlement claims.

parties yes and i believe tom demore is if the if the commissioners have questions about the particulars with the settlement um tom is available if there's questions he's the council representing the county in this matter but otherwise you've seen the settlements before agreement so this is just authorizing me to execute it and opt in

OK. I have no questions. I have no questions. All right. Thank you, Tom. Move approval. You move approval. OK. Any further discussion?

None.

Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. On to item I-5, consideration of approval of the revised CAFA grant application for 2026-27. And our assessor has sent us the specifics on that. So do I have a motion to approve?

Yes. So moved.

We have a motion to approve. Any further discussion?

Thank you for all of your work and to all of the counties who stuck together on this one.

Well, this is actually the one not through OFK. Yes. This is not the CFFA. This is the CAFFA. So it's, believe me, these acronyms can get a little confusing. So, yeah, Derek's been doing the work on that. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes. Okay. At this time, we will open up the public hearing. Item J, and that's docket FD-01-26, which is an appeal of the planning director's approval of a request for a principal dwelling provided in conjunction with farm use. So right now, what I would like to do is call for any abstentions from members of the board. Do we have any abstentions?

None from me.

None. Are there any objections to the jurisdiction of the board to hear the matter before any of the parties? Okay, none. Does any board member need to announce or state on the record the substance of any ex parte contact or any site visits?

None. None.

And Caleb, would you please read the required state law at the opening of this land use hearing? Yes.

Oregon law requires that persons who attend a land use hearing be advised of certain rights and duties before the hearing begins. First, with regard to the standards for approval, state law ORS 197.797 requires that we list the applicable substantive criteria that must be met in order for the county to approve the application. The standards will be listed by a county planner in a moment as part of her staff report. Testimony arguments and evidence must be directed towards the standards for approval. Second, the raise it or wave it rule. Under Oregon law, any issue that might be raised in an appeal of the county's decision in this matter must be raised before the record of this hearing is closed. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision makers and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the board based on that issue. Third, and this is directed to the applicant under ORS 197.796, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval, again, with sufficient specificity to allow the county to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Finally, I will note that under Oregon law, and because this is the initial evidentiary hearing on this matter, any participant, that is anyone who submits oral or written testimony during this hearing, may, before the record is closed, request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments, or testimony regarding the application. The request must be made prior to the time the chair announces that the hearing is closed. And I will pass out a copy of the criteria. Just, I think it will be helpful for the board to have that in front of them, so.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay.

All right, you ready for the staff report? Good morning, commissioners. The subject parcel is approximately 84.6 acres and is on exclusive farm use, EF80. Nearby zoning to the west and north is the forestry zone, and to the east and south is the exclusive farm use zone. The subject parcel is about 1,700 feet from the city of McMinnville. Surrounding land uses include farming, forestry, and residential uses. There's an existing driveway leading to a pole barn constructed in 2024 and permitted as an agricultural building. The pole barn houses farm equipment and supports ongoing agricultural activities on the property, including the breeding and raising of chickens and quail as part of the farm's livestock operation. There are a few other older farm buildings also located on the property.

Thank you. Can we have Bailey promote Jodi? She's here or something.

Okay. All right, thank you. All right, now we'll hear the applicant's case. And if you would give us your name and address for the record, please.

Okay, Ray Markham, 2610 Northwest Shannon Drive here in McMinnville. Thanks for having us today. I have some written statements here, so I'll just go through these as quickly as I can. I thought I would start with giving you a little bit of history about our family and our property here in Yamhill County. We've already submitted substantial evidence in support of our application, with the application, and since this appeal was filed. Hopefully you folks have had time to take a look at that stuff. regarding the history of our property. In 1957, my grandparents bought about 550 acres at the top of Redmond Hill Road. My grandfather, who was a World War II veteran, farmed the land, and my grandmother was a teacher and librarian at Amity High School for about 30 years. My grandfather died in 1982. My grandmother stayed on the property as long as she could until advanced Alzheimer's put her into a facility. The land was partitioned in 2009 between my mother and her sister. That included a surveyed and recorded access easement across my aunt's property to get to my parents' property. Surveyed, recorded, and approved. The planning department approved the partition with the easement as access in 2009. Mr. Ellingson purchased the 230 acres approximately from my aunt and uncle. He, of course, knew full well that there was a surveyed and recorded access easement that came with that land. In 2022, my parents decided that they wanted to partition their land and pass that on to their kids, my brother, my sister, and myself. In 2023, we applied and were approved for the partition, which of course included the access via the easement. My sister, my brother, and myself each got about 84.6 acres. My parents retain a five-acre life estate on my sister's parcel, which is accessed by the same easement and is adjacent to our property. My wife and I are retired public safety professionals. We're almost 60 years old. We didn't go into retirement thinking we wanted to go back into work full time. However, we knew that if we wanted to live on the family farm, we were gonna have to do a few things. One was to hire a soil scientist and show that our property is not high value, which we did. We knew that we would have to raise a farm product on the parcel and that we would have to earn the $40,000 a year gross income for two years or three out of five. And that's exactly what we did. We spent about $300,000 on infrastructure, When we received the property, there was no power on the property. There was no well on the property. We had to build another barn. So we spent a lot of money in infrastructure and building our business from the ground up. Let's see. We've been driving to and from our home here in McMinnville to the farm property to run our farm business every single day for the last three years, three and a half years. We also... take care of our farm property, raise our birds, and help my parents who are in their 80s. They still have goats and chickens. Again, their property borders our property, and my father is a 100% disabled Vietnam combat veteran who's on oxygen 24-7, so they need our help daily. I'd like to talk about the basis for Mr. Ellingson's appeal, if I may. Okay, so the basis for his appeal was that Quote, the income requirement needs better proof, and the planner didn't require receipts, especially for the chicken. Mr. Ellingson obtained a copy of our application materials after notice of the director's approval was mailed out. He knew that we submitted everything required before he submitted the appeal. Our application materials included our IRS tax transcripts, which is what's required, along with our Schedule Fs and other evidence. The planners also told Mr. Ellingson that tax transcripts are what is required as proof, and that we had submitted those, yet he submitted the appeal anyway. In his letter to the Board, which we just received on Monday, he stated that we only submitted our Schedule F, which of course is not true. He stated that a Schedule F is a self-reported tax document and does not by itself verify, one, that the income was actually received as claimed, two, that it reflects legitimate commercial farm activity, or three, that it was earned from the subject property. He stated that the reliance on Schedule F documents without corroboration is insufficient to meet the burden of proof. I'd like to note that seven months ago, Mr. Ellingson applied for a second farm help dwelling. He was approved for that, and the only proof that he provided of $80,000 of income earned was a Schedule F. Let's see. Mr. Ellingson stated on his appeal that he is aggrieved or adversely affected by the decision because 4E land owns the road that provides access to our parcel. He didn't go into detail on the appeal application about that. That's all he said on the appeal application. His letter that he submitted to the board asserted that since the partition of 2023, he's seen changes in how the easement is being used. There have been absolutely no changes. He referenced one Facebook post regarding my mother selling chicken eggs, which she has done for 20 years from her house. And he knew that when he bought the property. He's actually allowed her to keep a sign in the driveway of the old farmhouse pointing to the road so people could go get eggs. She has two to three egg customers a week and always has. Let's see. He states the road passes directly through active cattle pastures and increased and less predictable traffic has created practical challenges for our farming operation to include disturbance to livestock, interference with routine farming operations, and general safety concerns. He stated, our cattle operation is a working farm, and much of the livestock management depends on predictable conditions and limited disturbance along access routes. There are no livestock in the fields he's referencing along the easement road. He uses those fields primarily for grass and hay. This week, Monday, we took pictures of the four foot tall grass in all of those fields. There are no cattle there. We rarely see cattle on that property. Mr. Ellingson is trying to assert that he has a big cattle operation on that property, and he does not. He uses those fields primarily for grass and hay. uses the fields when he does have cattle 10 to 15 we've seen he uses the fields to the north of his property and to the south mostly for the cattle not along the easement road the easement road is also fenced entirely from the time you drive onto the easement road onto the property it's fenced on both sides all the way up uh let's see in the five years that he's owned the property Mr. Ellingson has never complained or spoken to us or my parents about our use of the road or hampering his farm operation because we've never given him a reason to. Not one time have we obstructed his ability to harvest, fertilize, spray, or seed his fields, mow his grass alongside the road, move what few cattle he's had there from one field to another, or his ability to move farm equipment up and down the road to and from various fields. There has been no increase in traffic because of our business. We deliver to our customers because we do not want people coming and going up and down the road to our property. He has never called me. He has my phone number. He has my email address. He's never called me to talk about the easement road. He's never emailed. We have seen him in person at the property several times and even spoken to him. He's never said a word to us about the use of the easement hampering his farming operation. Not one time. Let's see. On May 2nd, I emailed Mr. and Mrs. Ellingson telling them in part that if they wanted to have a conversation about the easement, that we would have it. We did not hear back from them at all. He's had every opportunity to speak with us about any issues, and he has not. His letter to the board that, again, we just received on Monday makes clear that Mr. Ellingson is simply throwing everything that he can at the wall to see what sticks here. This appeal should have never been filed to begin with. We submitted all the evidence that was required, and it should have never been accepted. Since this appeal was filed, Mr. Ellingson has gone about doing other things to try to keep us from building on our land, such as contacting the fire marshal and questioning the fire marshal about his sign-off and approval on our access. He's contacted the surveyor, who did the survey in 2009, has been questioning the surveyor about the survey that was done on the easement. Let's see. We've addressed Mr. Ellingson's basis for the appeal, and we're asking that the board not be distracted by Mr. Ellingson's baseless and false statements, which are all attempts to keep us from living on our property. We ask that the board focus on the statutory and ordinance requirements for farm dwelling and the fact that we've met all of those requirements. And we ask that you uphold the planning director's approval without any additional conditions. And that's all I have.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

I'll save them.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks very much.

Do we have any testimony in support of the application? Could you share your name and address, please?

Good morning. I am Bernadine Markham, 2610 Northwest Chatham Drive, McMinnville. And I am... Ray's wife, of course. And I'd like to start with matters of the heart because that's what really matters to me. So you understand how we work hard invested so much time and money on our property. Ray's grandparents bought the farm as he stated in 1957. At that time was about 560 acres. Ray's mother grew up on the farm from the age from time she was nine years old. Her grandparents or Ray's grandparents adopted her. along with some siblings, and they grew up on that farm. And she talks about how much she loves that farm and the times that she spent up there, times that she camped, you know, under the stars. And it means a great deal to my mother-in-law. And she's passed those feelings on over to us. And therefore, it means a lot to our family. They've had family dinners and holidays up at the old farmhouse, which now belongs, is on Mr. Ellingson's property. they've had family dinners, holiday dinners, you know, stories to tell from that farmhouse. So that farmhouse, even though it's in Mr. Ellingson's property, means a lot to us. And we're really glad that somebody, his farm help is now living there and taking care of that home. Mr. Ellingson's property and currently, like I stated, his farmhouse is now the dwelling for his farm help. And we're more than happy that that is happening now. We love and respect the land, including Mr. Ellingston's. That property is once the family is all of it. And so it all is very special and dear to us and the stories that have held. So I want you to know how much the whole property means to us, even Mr. Ellingston's. And we have great deal of respect for that whole property. Lots of memories passed on. It's a family legacy. And we want to live on that property to continue to care for as long as we can and care for the aging parents or aging parents or raised parents that are there and they're in their 80s. And who else would better take care of that property than ourselves? You know, we're family, we want to continue that legacy and we want to take care of it. Clearly, Mr. Ellison doesn't appear that he's that concerned about our disabled parents that are adjacent on that parcel. that need our help daily, and that's why we're there, also to help them. My father-in-law, as Ray stated, is 100% disabled veteran on oxygen 24-7. Our residing up on the road from them will facilitate caring for their needs. We're already there twice a day. We do a lot for them. Just being up there will facilitate that so much more. And by the way, my husband Ray is also a disabled veteran. uh mr ellingson's fabrications come across as derogatory almost as his persistent attempt to prevent us from rightfully living on our property is um an overreach that's from what in my stance and the way i see it um he once admitted to my husband that he'll never do anything to help us to live up on our property um in addition to me it's defamation of our character because he's basically calling us liars and assuming that we forged or modified documents I find this highly offensive, especially since we spent most of our career in public service. Ray spent eight years in the military. He worked at the sheriff's office in gang enforcement, child abuse, and he retired in homicide. And I have over 25 years in community service, and I retired as a pretrial police officer here in Yamhill County a couple years ago. So throughout our career, we are driven by our integrity, our loyalty, our honesty. to continue to do what we have, even to continue to do so after our retirement. Those values are very strong for us and we would never forge or be dishonest in any documentation. And our hard work comes from our heart. And we take pride in being honest and forthright in everything we do. Mr. Ellingson refers to active cattle pastures along the easement. This is also incorrect as far as I've seen. We've seen as of Monday, we saw we drove along the grass all up and down the easement road is almost as tall as I am. On Monday itself, it was just all along was great as clearly no cattle had been grazing on it. Tuesday, he did finally mow it down, where perhaps it's for hay. We've seen cattle there maybe a handful of times along the road, maybe eight to ten cattle at most. We've discussed it with my in-laws. They've agreed that we don't see that many cattle up and down the road there. A few times that we have seen them, the cattle we drive by, they might be up against the fence a couple of times, a few times that we saw them. They're calm as we pass them. They're not bothered. I imagine that's why cattle are not easily affected when you see them along the highway. They're so used to cars, they don't startle that easily. Same with these few cows that we saw. They just laid and watched us drive by. He's concerned, or Mr. Allison is concerned about the traffic. He has skid steers that go up and down the road, tractors, semi-trucks. We've seen them all. His farm help goes up and down. His son uses that road as well to get to his parcel. It's only Ray and I driving up and down that road twice a day on our passenger cars. If we lived there, traffic would be considerably lower than that since we're both retired. We wouldn't have reason to go up and down as often as we do now to take care of the property. And our adult children are living out of town, unfortunately. We do have one that's close by. It's not like we have a lot of people coming and going. As Ray mentioned, our customers, we'd rather we prefer not to have anyone come to our property. We deliver, we choose to deliver to our customers. If anything, there would be less traffic if we lived up there. Mr. Ellison one time mentioned in his letter to the board, mentioned dogs as part of the traffic. We've never seen dogs up there except my in-laws livestock guardian dogs and she has two of them now and we ourselves do not own dogs but we've never seen dogs up and down that road ever. As far as the eggs, my mother-in-law has sold eggs for the last 20 years. Those are her eggs. We do not sell eggs to the customers from our farm. We do deliver but they never are They never come personally to our farm. And as far as my mother-in-law selling eggs, this is helpful for her. They're disabled. They're on a fixed income. Every little bit helps her pay for her feed. And she's done that for 20 years. And she's got some regular customers to help her do that. And it's a farm. People sell eggs from their farms. So she's been doing that for a while. Mr. Ellingston also attached photos of rocks that I've painted. This to me is quite laughable, to be honest, because if you see that those are not professional, they're not, you know, nothing to behold. It's just a few of the rocks that I've sold on the site is my hobby. I like to paint. It's not part of our farm operation by any means. That's just a hobby that I have. And I've sold maybe two or three and that's about it. Farming our land. We paid 8,000, as Ray mentioned, to a soil scientist to evaluate our land. He deemed it low value, and he even told us he couldn't even grow Christmas trees on our property. It's a lot of clay, a lot of hillside rock, very difficult to farm it as you would a typical farm. We are limited to what we can grow, so that's why we chose non-GMO chicken and quail. And we've done very well. people have really appreciate that in the community. And that's what that's how we've met the income. And luckily, we found our niche. And that has been very successful, as the only option that we have because of the land that we are working with. We also run run longhorn cattle up there to help generate, or I should say regenerate the land, as well as my mother in law's goats, they're all happen to be on our property now. She has them back there. As far as the in the The barn that where she keeps the matter is in our property and the yard that they run in so clearly our family are farming, there are limitations. We land are we former land differently than Mr ellingson because of that, and so we feel I feel we shouldn't be discriminate against that we're not here, you know what people call typical farming or farmers. because we're limited to what we can do. And that's why we chose non-GMO chicken and quail. And it's done very well. So lastly, I ask the board to thank you for letting me come up here and speak. And I also ask the board to please focus on the statutory ordinance requirements for farm dwelling. and the fact that we've met all those requirements, which is the only concern Mr. Allingson wrote in his appeal and not to focus on Mr. Allingson's personal vendetta against us.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

None.

Okay. The appellant's case. So if you could come up and state your name and address. Are you the appellant? Are you appealing? Yes. OK, that's OK. We'll try to talk a little louder. Yes, if you're the appellant, you can just give us your name and address for the record.

My name's Clark Ellingson. I reside at 10075 Southwest Youngberg Hill Road here in McMinnville, Oregon. And I represent 4E Land LLC. I own it jointly with my wife, Diane. I made an addition.

that didn't appear on monday so i want to hand out those copies and i i went ahead and just printed off the entire thing so you've already received this on monday and then i just added those pictures that's the only change that is the pictures just the pictures that

but it's the same thing you submitted.

All I was going to say here is I submitted my evidence based on applicable land use law. And I trust you read it. And I don't really have any more comment on that. There's been so much other stuff thrown at the record here. If you consider it relevant, I'm happy to address 100% of it. Ruth Curia was my friend. I've been associated with her since probably in the 80s. So I'm not new to this property. We've worked extremely hard to keep it in EFU 80. It's the zone. And we've made considerable strides in improving that. He made a comment about there's 37 head of probably eight-weight steers that are just to the south of that driveway. We have cross fences. We have water traps. I can move the cattle by myself, only periodically having to close gates across the road, which they know all of this full well. The picture they're trying to paint here is false. And so I'll address it if you consider it relevant. I'm prepared. There's items in there. I mean, you referenced my contact in the fire marshal. The fire marshal has written standards. And there was a curve there that didn't meet them. And so I asked. You know, why did you approve this? And I talked to Steve Candela and he told me that he looked at it and it was acceptable to him. And when his boss called me and asked about it, I didn't throw Steve under the bus. I told him I accepted it. So they're trying to paint me from refusing to let them use the easement. No. I was wondering why it was approved and why the written criteria is much different than the curve there. And so I have something there, too, to illustrate. I wasn't going to get into them.

So that's a curved cable. It shows the standard.

But you'll note that Ray Markham was the one that called it.

It says right there. And so the surveyors sent it to me. Can I read one?

You can give it to Ken.

Would you give that to Ken? Thank you.

So that's just another aspect of it.

But much of what they say is not relevant to the Alpacill land use law. That's what I'm trying to do is stick to that here. And they have not addressed my concerns at all. And if you think all the stuff that's been put on the record here today is relevant, I can give my side of the story here. Otherwise, I'll let you, I'll just let you, I know you've done your homework. I know you know your job. I'll just trust you to make your decision.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

I don't think I have questions for Mr. Ellington, though.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other testimony in support of the, or in opposition to the application in support of the appellate? Anyone else? OK. Can we get our public? You have a chance to rebut.

So can we get the public agency reports, Tiffany?

This was processed as a type a and so there we didn't have a referral, but we did receive the approval from the fire department and public works that was provided in their application, as well as they did already get septic approval with sanitation.

Okay, great Thank you very much, and now it's time for rebuttal by the applicant if there's anything you'd like to rebut.

The. documents or photographs that he provided you, we don't have copies of. We haven't seen those.

He's gone more than, I don't know what he's doing. Mind if I take a look at this real quick? Go ahead.

I'm wondering, Ken, is this something where we would basically say nobody's had time to see this or the applicant hasn't, or are we okay to just proceed?

Someone can ask to leave the record open as one option. Another option would be if the board wants to have additional time to take a look at these, you could postpone your deliberation for one week so you had some time to look at it and then Kit would also be able to at least have the option of participating. and we would obviously provide them with the recording and the documents that we receive. So those are the two options. Any of the parties can request to leave the record open or the board can decide to postpone it for a week. Mr. Ellington, did you hear that?

So we could make that determination?

Yeah, yeah, and I'd be fine on that.

Okay, because we can actually as you know, the board can basically say we'd like to consider this and have Chair Johnston weigh in on this so that when we do come back at the point of deliberations, everybody's had opportunity to see the same material.

And if you do that, it might be good to continue with that staff recommendation.

Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and do that. So what we'll do basically at this point is everybody and our chair, who's not here, will have a chance to look at all of the information, listen to the hearing, and then you will have a chance to look at that. And then when we come back, it will be at the point of staff recommendation, if that's okay with you.

one point one point ken uh sorry jody galvan uh i think we'd want to bring it back before staff recommendation we want to give him a rebuttal opportunity so one step before that writing written rebuttal uh because it uh oh you're saying um uh

if they, I guess, what are you saying? I'm not sure I understand.

So it sounds like Commissioner Starrett wants to postpone it one week. Is that right? Yes. Okay. So that would not give the applicants enough time to submit. So we couldn't do the 777, right?

Right, right. And we're not doing the 777. It would just be having the staff recommendation open back up at that point because that's after rebuttal. And so...

So he needs an opportunity for rebuttal. So as long as we fit that in somehow. He's not...

He has an opportunity for a rebuttal right now. If for some reason he'd like to have additional opportunity for written rebuttal, then he can ask to leave the record open.

Oh, I was under the assumption he asked for time.

Oh, he said he did not. Oh, okay.

Okay. That might be, I just didn't hear it. He wasn't into the microphone. So if he doesn't need time, I get it. Staff recommendation makes sense. Okay. Thanks.

All right. But then again, to Jody's point, If there would be, after reviewing this, you're basically saying that any rebuttal would be written and then... No, what I'm saying is that we would continue it at staff recommendation.

He would provide his rebuttal right now. If he needs additional time, he could ask for five minutes to look at the pictures or whatever... he'd like, or he can ask to leave the record open, which it sounds like he does not want to do. And we would just continue it at staff recommendation and come back, open it up at staff recommendation, and his rebuttal would be what he would put on the record today. Is that? So no further testimony? No further testimony. We would close the record and come back at the point of staff recommendation. OK. And that's in a week. In a week, yes. That's what I'm feeling. Is that what you want to do, Commissioner Sterring?

Yeah, we can do that. I just want to make sure everybody feels comfortable.

My rebuttal is super short, and I just wanted to see what it was he provided you folks, because we weren't provided them.

One second. I just want to make sure everybody's comfortable and that if you do want an opportunity to look at this, that you have it. But if you basically want to do your rebuttal now, we can come back at the point of staff recommendation

and um so if you give your refund now you don't get a chance later is basically what i'm understanding yeah and that's coming back at the point of after that so if you want to go ahead and do that yeah and mr ellington are you comfortable with waiting a week or i don't know that you get a chance to get it i'm understanding that the record would still be open no

It would not be open. The only way to keep the record open is to request to leave the record open for an additional week and which would basically push this out by about four weeks because that's why we said the 7-7-7. There's seven days for the applicant or anybody to submit testimony. There's an opportunity for someone to submit a rebuttal to that in seven days. And then the final seven days is for the applicant and the applicant only to provide final comments. But no one's requested that yet, and so we're looking at one additional week and continuing it at staff recommendation.

Okay. Are you okay with that?

Can someone, he either needs to speak into the microphone or someone needs to repeat what he's saying. Yeah.

The question was from the appellant, is there an opportunity for the appellant to rebut the applicants? No, there is not. So we're at the point where unless somebody asks for the record to stay open, we could go ahead with rebuttal now. and then return at the point of staff recommendation in a week. In a week.

Sounds good to me.

All right. So do you want to go ahead and do your rebuttal?

Sure. So just looking at these pictures here of a person walking with a dog on the property there, looks like this year, it looks like, in April. Regarding Foot traffic and dogs, thank you. Foot traffic, dogs, and those kind of things that he mentioned in his letter. We have not seen that. It looks like he has pictures of it, which is unfortunate. And the reason for that is not because these people are walking up and down the road that has anything to do with our business or even my mother's egg sales that I know of. People drive up there to pick up eggs. in the neighborhoods down below the farm off of Redmond Hill Road, it's all residential. And there are people that walk up and down that road all the time. And there have been people who have walked onto the property, onto the gravel road, to see what's up there. Most people don't even know that all that land is up there. Mr. Ellingson has no trespassing signs all over the place at the entrance and going up the road. There's no trespassing signs for that reason. So this person that is pictured here, I'm just guessing, most likely came from the neighborhoods down below. Has nothing to do with our use of the road as an easement at all. This The corner that he's referencing, that he spoke with the fire marshal about, has literally nothing to do with Mr. Ellingson's property. That corner is the corner we have to take in order to get across my sister's property, my parents' five-acre life estate, to get to our property. He doesn't go across that corner. He doesn't take that corner. The only reason he would contact the fire marshal about that corner is in an effort to try to find a reason to keep us from being approved and to find that the access not be approved. He has nothing to do with using that corner. And again, the fire marshal approved it. It's been approved in 2009 and again in 2023. So that's a non-issue. And I think that's all I wanted to address.

Thank you. Any questions?

So the threshold for the Schedule F is $48,000, correct? That's what we're looking at?

That's correct.

OK. That's it.

And I think the confusion was I was saying a year, and you were talking about the two-year period. So it's the same thing. Two years.

And then if we plan this now and he, in a year or two, decides chickens aren't his thing, everything's fine.

Yeah, there's no requirement to do a particular type of farming or you're risking loss of deferral if you decide not to farm, but there's nothing that requires us to come back and check in years to come.

Okay.

That's all I have.

All right. Well, thank you.

Thank you.

So we can go ahead basically and close the hearing and to come back at the point of staff recommendation. Yep.

Close the hearing and come back at staff recommendation for at 10 a.m. on May 28th, 2026 in room 32 of the Amhill County Courthouse. And anyone can say so moved and vote on that. So moved.

So moved. All right. We'll go ahead and close the hearing. Thank you, everybody, for coming. And we'll come back in a week and finish this up. All right. Well, we'll come back to our board session to the point of announcements. And Commissioner King.

Let's see here. Well, first off, just a congratulations to all, including Chair Johnson and seems that probably Jason Fields. So just a congratulations to those guys on their well-earned campaigns and wins this week. That is the wrong week that I have there. AOC, Public Safety and Veterans Committee was on Friday. We talked largely about juvenile detention, a little bit on emergency management again, but just, you know, I hear occasionally we get to hear some presentations about, you know, in other counties and so on. And I, you know, juvenile is just one of the areas that I'm very proud of, you know, that we, we, uh, excel in here in Yamhill County. And, um, and so I'm just very proud of that. Um, that was Shehalem Valley chamber executive, a couple of the, on the executive boards there, um, Polish homes and had a grand opening at the Kalina, um, subdivision there, which is, to be eventually be around 900 homes i think this space is around 400 really wide range of homes from two bedrooms to you know larger i think four or five bedroom homes and just they've been a great partner there to city of newberg CEDCOR had an industry tour at Hampton Lumber that I got to attend. Oregon Wine Association, Wine Growers Association, yesterday they had their yearly meeting and they had a panel of the Governor's Prosperity Council, a couple from them, we heard from them, and the Wine Caucus leadership from the legislation. They largely talked about taxes, transportation, ICE, and just you know how they focus on on yam hill count oil the wine region willamette valley um when it comes to legislation and when they're coming up for this next session um and this morning we had parkway committee and willamette valley willamette workforce partnership as well thank you

All righty, I just wanted to point out, yes, and again, regarding the elections, I want to say a very special thank you to our clerk, Carrie Hinton, and her election workers and staff. They work very long hours, and they've always had clean audits, and we're very proud of the work that our clerk has done. And again, congratulations. We'll get to retain Chair Kit Johnston, the hardworking commissioner, and Jason Fields, who's been on our budget committee, will get to sit in this seat and or whatever seat he wants. He's going to be a commissioner. He can sit wherever he wants. I'm very proud of the campaign that he ran, and I'm very excited to see these hardworking guys working in behalf of the county. So there was on, I noticed on our website, I went to see what was going on on our transit website because we've had some concerns about the dial-a-ride situation. And one of the website searches showed that the transit YCTA was temporarily closed. So I want to thank our deputy administrator and our county administrator for looking into it because it showed that our transit center was temporarily closed. So they think that it's basically a situation with dealing with that one particular site. The Transit Center and YCTA is very much alive and well and going strong. We have gotten a couple of emails regarding the difference to the service level of dial-a-ride. What I think people don't understand is we are not stopping Dial-A-Ride, but it has been, I don't want to say abused, but it got to be where it was pretty much an Uber for a lot of folks. And the folks that it was designed for, who are people who have a hard time getting around or they're older people, handicapped were not being able to have access to it. That's going to be revamped. Anyone who is really in need can apply and it's an application process for paratransit. We did have a woman who asked us to kind of redo things in terms of Dyloride because her daughter who has Down syndrome is not able to access that Dyloride service anymore. So I asked her whether or not she'd applied for paratransit and also I want people to understand that our developmental disabilities office in this county is an extremely comprehensive resource for anybody who needs anything in that area. And I put her in touch with developmental disabilities and hope that that application for paratransit will get her where she needs. To that end, we did have an update with our mental health disability advisory.

One thing, while your application is 21 days and while it is in review, you should still be able to get Dial-A-Ride. So just to make sure that that's clear as well for people who are trying to access.

Yeah, there was a lot of disinformation out there, but hopefully we're able to get that information corrected. In any event, our developmental disabilities, we had a data review. There are about 900 kids that are now accessing these services, and that number is growing. They do Medicaid eligibility, and an awful lot goes on in that office. So I want to thank Stacey and Chelsea for that work. I do appreciate some of the work that they're doing, which is very labor-intensive. Met with emergency manager Bryant Young. Sergeant Young is echoing what everybody around the state is talking about, is that emergency management in this state is not defined well. We are very dependent on FEMA, and everybody needs an extra person. So we're working on that collectively at the state level to try to get some more funding statewide. And the definition of emergency management is pretty fractured. So we do need support from AOC. Also, we had a disaster declaration update that Commissioner Johnston and I were at for the December 2025 wind, flooding, roads, water treatment reimbursements after the major disaster reimbursements. This was a declaration for the severe weather we had December 15th to 2020. first in 25. Also had a meeting of the Suicide Prevention Coalition and we're gonna be focusing on youth and an outreach to older folks and men. We had our CCO board meeting. CCOs around the state will experience reduced enrollment because of the changes in Medicaid. It's gonna really impact who they serve and the numbers that they serve. There are stricter eligibility rules and more frequent renewals and non-citizen eligibility issues. Let's see, what else do we have? I do want to say that Amy Hannafin with McMinnville Fire Department unfortunately is going to be leaving us, and she's going to be going down to Ashland. Her last day is tomorrow, and she will be a deputy chief of operations. She's been wonderful to work with. Congratulations. We had a meeting of the Governance, Revenue, and Economic Development Steering Committee talking about that middle income revolving loan program. We're not the only ones thinking there's an awful lot of confusion about that. We also had a really deep dive into that CAFA study, which is what funds our taxation and assessment department. Vastly, vastly underfunded. So we're going to continue to work on that. And at this point, I want to thank everybody for hanging in there. And we'll see you back here on Thursday. Next week. Thank you very much. Thank you. We're adjourned.