Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for today's August 5th, 2026 meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. We will now call the meeting to order. The first order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join us.

Pledge of Allegiance. United States of America.

We will now review, modify, if necessary, and approve the agenda.

Are there any requests for changes, additions, subtractions?

Move approval of the agenda as presented.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. DeBone?

Yes.

Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Now we'll move on to citizen input. I have one blue form up here. If there's anyone in the room who would like to provide public comment this morning, please fill out one of these blue forms and bring it up to Brenda. And if there's anyone online, please raise your hand, your virtual hand. So first up, we have Tawny Howlett.

Okay. Good morning, commissioners. Tani Howlett, Ben resident. As you review and vote on approving the ballot measure to implement single-member districts locally today, I urge you to think that or consider that two weeks ago, a letter signed by a coalition of over 500 scholars urged Congress to adopt proportional representation as single-member districts continue to fail in delivering fair and representative outcomes. In a proportional electoral system, votes contribute to representation regardless of where folks are geographically concentrated, and this impairs the ability of district boundaries to distort outcomes. Such a system makes an opportunity for meaningful representation universal rather than contingent on the address at which you live. Single-member districts, even when impartially drawn, can still leave large portions of electorate without representation commensurate with their share of the vote. So instead of further dividing and disenfranchising our county, I encourage you to actively improve community representation and encourage electoral participation with a system that gives voters more choice and more power. Thank you.

Thank you, Toni.

Right.

Is there anyone else in the room who would like to provide public comment this morning? And any hands raised online? Okay. We can now move on to commissioner announcements. Are there any commissioner announcements?

I have nothing.

I have nothing at this time.

I'll just mention that on Monday, we will hopefully have a pretty brief board meeting so that some of us can go on to attend the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program policy discussion that the Oregon Water Resources Department will be holding at 2pm that day. That's the only announcement I have. OK. So now we can move on to the consent agenda.

So move the consent.

And I will second it. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? I would just like to thank all of the people who have served and will serve on the Sun River Service District Board. The board has an incredibly important public safety responsibility and role. in our community, and there have been a number of great people who have served on that board and who intend to serve on that board who are carrying the torch on that mission.

And I'll acknowledge the county policies that are in this consent agenda, a lot of kind of just bringing them up to speed, legal terms, wordsmithing, so it's good to be able to touch these and really kind of dial them in right now. Thanks for the staff that worked hard on that.

Okay. If there's no further discussion, we'll call for the vote. Commissioner Adair?

Yes.

Commissioner DeBone? Yes. And Chair votes yes.

And I do want to acknowledge Brenda's hard work and all the minutes from our budget meetings, three days of meetings. Thank you, Brenda. We so appreciate having you here.

Okay.

Now we can move on to the action items on our agenda.

Thanks, staff, for joining us this morning. Item number nine, review of revised draft SEL 805 form regarding commissioner districts. And I believe that staff has also added an order associated with this SEL 805 form to this item.

Thank you, Commissioners. Dave Doyle, County Council. I'm joined by County Clerk Steve Dennison.

Morning.

Yes, today staff's asking that you make final decisions on the wordsmithing associated with the SEL and also the explanatory statement. And we just want to double confirm for you based on... Your meeting on Monday, the map that you directed be generated for this election. We're not necessarily prepared to get into the folds and things like that are going to occur. That's logistical stuff, but the clerk works out a lot closer to the election. But we understood this to be the map you directed, so we want to make sure we have clear confirmation on that. I would ask that the board make some final decisions today on these. As you know, next Wednesday would be the last opportunity. You don't have a meeting. Monday, you don't have your county clerk your county attorney or your county administrator at the meeting. So Probably be a good idea to try to make the final decision today. This thing's been in front of various Public meetings and hearings I think double-digit times So I would hope we could I'd certainly encourage that we move forward with the final language today on the SEL If you look at the draft order under Exhibit 1, we have the ballot title is one of the sub-exhibits there, and that's the draft that we put together after the last time we met with you folks a few weeks ago. The highlighted in yellow is the language that we changed at your direction, and as indicated after that, the clerk did their official count, and it put us, I believe, 15 points. words over um staff's recommendation following that was to just omit the the description the geographic descriptions in as much as there's a map that's going to be included and a website that people can go to and actively see where they are but obviously it's up to you folks to wordsmith but we need to get 15 words out right steve in order to last count in order to meet the requirement Essentially, the ball's in your court as to what you want to do with those explanatory statement, the SEL, and then if you could ideally confirm that that's the map you directed on Monday.

So there is an action item to strike words from the SEL 805 right now.

We need to lose 15 words, right, Steve?

We need to be at 175, no more than 175. Yep.

Yeah. So the starting point for me thinking through that is just dropping that whole section about the five proposed district generally include. If we drop that whole thing, we'll be under by plenty.

Yeah.

So that does take care of it. Yes.

You also have the option to, there are words in the explanatory statement. So if you chose to move that paragraph to another section, that would show up in front of the voters in the voters pamphlet.

Based on the discussion the other day, the map, again, the primary geographic information that this provides to people for them to determine where within this district map they live are the precinct numbers. So if we have a few words to spare, I would suggest that in the link that we provide people, that page on the county website, that we don't just say that they can determine which proposed district they live in, but that we also, within that link, we help them understand what precinct they live in in some way. And that would mean adding a couple of words to this last sentence to determine... The precinct or the proposed district and or in which you reside, you can visit that link.

We can make that change. So it would read to determine the precinct and or proposed district in which you reside, you can visit the chutes.whatever.

I support that.

Or district first. Or district first?

Commissioner Chang read it as to determine the precinct and or proposed district.

I would reverse it. I would put district and then add precinct after it.

So it would be proposed district and or precinct in which you reside?

Yeah, because we're talking about it's a district map, but it does fall into certain precincts.

And I don't think we need to say and or. It's just precinct and proposed district. Because you do live in a precinct already.

Yeah, I think it's, you know, the districts are something proposed. The precincts are something that exists. So I think it's appropriate to put precinct first. And if people know what precinct they live in, then they can just use this map and figure out what district they live in.

so do you want to read the proposed words again you know kind of the sentence itself i think mr chang's suggesting that read to determine the precinct and proposed district in which you reside you can visit the shoots county dot gov slash i guess that's a backslash district map how about the uh determine the precinct which we reside in the proposed district

That'd be fine.

Could you repeat that?

So determine the precinct in which you reside and the proposed district you can visit.

OK.

Determine the precinct in which you reside and proposed district, comma.

Maybe not even. We don't need to say reside twice in the proposed district, comma, you can visit. Because you're already going to be in a precinct and you reside there. And then there's a proposed district.

So to determine the precinct in which you reside.

And the proposed district.

And the proposed district. In the proposed district, you can visit the website. I don't know that that causes any word count issues with pulling the other big piece out.

If we have 15 words to play with, then that only adds a few.

Well, and then, Mr. Dennison, you mentioned being able to move that whole sentence from the SEL 805 to the explanatory statement. We have plenty of numbers there.

The last count that I had, there were plenty of, there was a significant buffer, but I have not counted this current number. Okay. Take me a couple minutes to do that.

Okay. Well, I mean, if that works, that would be a great place to put it. So that whole statement, just putting in the explanatory statement before the sentence, if the measure is not approved, this commissioner elections will remain at large.

Right.

If you want to move that and there's not a word number constraint, I would suggest we add Tumalo and Blackbeet Ranch into that description. We'll expand that statement a little bit.

Yeah.

I support that too. Yeah, so now we'll have to make sure the numbers work.

Can we make sure they work this morning? Yes, so can you come back if case there's an issue.

And we could go up will will clean the language because this is an exhibit to the order and we can bring that back in final form later in the meeting here.

Okay, that'd be excellent. Thank you.

I just for clarity of it is it so district. We have district one east band district to West Bend district 3. It says Redmond and surrounding areas. Is that where you want to add Redmond, Tumalo, and I forget whatever else you just said.

Black Butte Ranch. But that's actually going to go in District 5? District 5. Isn't it? Where's Tumalo?

Sisters, Tarabon, Tumalo.

Yeah. Tumalo is not in the Redmond district, Redmond associated district.

Yeah, let's make sure it's the right one.

District 5. Northern Deschutes County, including Sisters, Comma, tarragon, comma, cumuload.

Black Butte Ranch. And Black Butte Ranch.

OK. So that's being pulled out of the SEL and moved over to the explanatory statement. At least one of you said you want that insert to be right above where it says if the measure is not approved.

That's what I had proposed, yes.

If you're supportive of that, which changes, we can go make those back here in just a few minutes with the final document.

Well, and thanks for putting it in the order form all with the exhibits. It's a nice package to be able to just share with people, say, this is it. This is the final version, and these are the map and everything.

All right.

Regarding the language, I would recommend a motion directing staff to make those changes and a vote on that. And then maybe separately, you can take up the map and let us know.

Is this item number 10, then, that we're actually talking about?

Well, it seems like we're jumping back and forth between the explanatory statement and the SEL 805.

On the agenda, put those two agenda items kind of together.

Okay.

So, yeah, I mean, I'll make a motion approving order number 2026-030 with the changes as discussed.

I'll second.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? well i'll just say that while i wanted to make sure that this was as clear and as accurate as possible to be presented to the voters i still don't think that this is a good ballot measure um i think that there is a better way to do districting and i would encourage this board to shelve this effort and let the next board of commissioners do the districting right and then present it to the voters.

So with that... Yep. And I mean, I'm enthusiastically supportive. We're working through the process. This is a point in time. This is the, you know, following the efforts of going to five districts, being nonpartisan. This is the moment. Let's ask the voters for clarity and direction on this. And if it fails, it'll come back around someday, probably. But this is the time to do it.

All right. Calling for the vote. It was your motion.

It was Commissioner DeBone. It was your motion.

Okay. Calling for the vote. Commissioner DeBone. Yes. Commissioner Adair. Yes.

And chair votes no. And separately, you get confirmation that the map we provided you is the correct map. I don't know if that was part of your motion or not, Commissioner Devone.

So I was referring to the attachments as provided, you know, items as provided. But I will move approval of the map as presented.

And I'll second the motion.

Well, it's been moved and seconded. Further discussion?

And we did work on the map yesterday with all the different grays that we could come up with. The clarity. So I think that's good.

As discussed the other day.

Monday, sorry.

As discussed the other day, I think that the map would be better on two pages rather than just one. And one way you could do that would be to put... whole county map on one page and put all the district insert maps on the second page. Because I think the bigger that we make these maps, the easier it is for people to understand the implications of the maps and where they live or which district they live in. So if That's the, I mean, if we're not voting on that today, then I'd like that to continue to be a point of discussion. Just to clarify, is the motion to move forward with this map the way it is on this one page?

So my understanding is, yeah, this map in this form and either You know, it kind of naturally breaks down the Precinct 43 with a couple items on the left and another item on the right. So I support the map as it's presented and not to be rearranged.

Clerk Dennison, is that something that can be done in the voter pamphlet scene?

Yes. So as submitted as it is right now, that's something that we can work toward, as we discussed on Monday, opening up and having it on two pages. So making this current version as large as possible in front of the voters. So having the measured text and explanatory on one page and voter return the page and see the full map.

Well, if we actually accomplish those kinds of sizes of this map and these inserts, then I do think that there might be room to add a little bit more geographic information to help people identify where they live. So that would be my second question or concern about this current map.

Well, and this is that dicey moment where is this the map or is this not the map? And you're proposing that you have questions and ideas, but the motion is that this is the map.

Well, if this is the map and it's not certain how big it's going to be, how it's going to be broken up, whether there will be more geographic information for people to understand where they live and what district they live in, then I'll vote no. Okay, I'm calling for the vote. Commissioner DeBone?

Yes.

Commissioner Adair?

Yes.

Chair votes no.

Thank you. We'll return shortly.

Item number 10 was the explanatory statement. And I did have, I also had a little bit of input on that. I think that these first three words in the explanatory statement should be taken out in response to. This was not the inevitable response to ballot measure 9-173. This was... one of many, many potential responses. And so I think it should just be, rather than spinning it as like this is the only thing that could happen in response to measure 9-173, we just say measure 9-173 was approved in November 2024. Expanded the board from three to five and, you know, period. Then the board of commissioners appointed an advisory committee tasked with developing five commissioner voting districts for consideration.

So I had made a motion after our discussion about moving that sentence from the valid title to the explanatory statement, and I had seen that as the final version. Thank you for bringing these ideas up, but I'm supportive of the explanatory statement beginning as presented.

I do not believe this explanatory statement was covered by the order. It was just that 805, the SEL 805.

It is in the order, but certainly if you want to address it separately, as you've indicated, you can and obtain a motion if there is one.

Okay.

Well... If we really want to be, if you insist on keeping an in response statement in, and we really actually want to be accurate with the voters about what this is, I would propose that we add a sentence, something to the effect of, in response to ballot measure 9-173 passing, Commissioners, afraid that they would not be able to win at large seats anymore, launched a rigged process to try to cling to power through gerrymandered maps.

That's right. Let's talk gerrymandered.

Yeah, let's talk gerrymandered.

Yes, I know. I just discovered that I'm running for Congress in a seat that's actually 61,000 voters, bigger than the smallest congressional district in the state. So there's over a 12%, I think, spread in Oregon on different districts. So anyway... You've been talking about this as a gerrymander, but clearly, if you look at it, two from Bend, one from Redmond, one from Terrebonne Sisters, and then one from South County. So it's really... Someone pointed out the other day, they thought it really was a logical look at our beautiful Deschutes County.

Yeah. When our community member, Bryce Kellogg, ran the parameters that we provided to the DMACC and produced 20,000 possible maps that met our criteria, only 8% of them produced the partisan advantage that this map does. So 92% of possible districts were not as favorable. And I think that's pretty clear evidence that this is a gerrymandered map. And the Princeton Gerrymandering Project reinforced that through their analysis. So call it what it is. All right. So we don't need another vote because there's not an additional motion.

We'll be back shortly. Thank you.

Thank you.

OK. Item number 11, public hearing to Schuetz 2040 Comprehensive Plan Limited Remand.

Good morning, Chair, Commissioners. Will Groves here, your Planning Manager for a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Remand. This is a public hearing, so we'll go through the usual introduction. But just to get you oriented, of course, this is on file 24726000409A. That's the remand associated with ordinance number 2026015. And you can see, oh, I need to get my screen shared. Hold on a moment. Could I be promoted?

Did we run through the script, Will, or?

We can get started. I just wanted to make sure everybody was alert to the file numbers, and we can run through the script. Thank you, Chair.

OK. This is the time and place set for a hearing regarding file numbers 247-26-000409-A. This is a hearing on the Deschutes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Limited Remit. Staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed.

John Potter, There a word county commissioners will take testimony and receipt and it's concerning a limited legislative remit seating on ordinance 2025 oh seven and read the dishes plan. Today's hearing will proceed as follows. First, staff will explain the hearing format and how to testify and provide a brief presentation. That's the staff report. Then testimony will begin. Parties are allocated three minutes to testify. And last, staff will make closing comments. And of course, the board can change or modify. This is a in-person and remote hybrid hearing. And it's going to be important that before you start your testimony, you'll need to state both your first and last name and mailing address. In-person participants, if you wish to testify, please fill out a blue sign-up sheet and submit it to the board's executive assistant on the left of the dais. The chair will call in-person participants for their testimony. After your name is called, please come up to one of the tables at the front of the room and begin your testimony. For our remote participants, you'll want to testify. You must be logged into Zoom or have called in using Zoom using the dial-in option. When the chair asks if anyone would like to testify, you will need to raise your hand using that feature, and you can do this by pressing the raise hand button on your computer, smart device, or if you called in, dial star 9. When it's your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist, and you may experience a brief pause during that status change. Once you have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera if you'd like. Hearing procedures. Individual role testimony. If anyone has written testimony to submit, please hand it in to me. If you are in person, please submit written testimony after your testimony in person. And if you're participating remotely, you can submit your recent written testimony via email to me. That's at will G at the shoots.org. The chair and staff are hearing any testimony or behavior, which is inappropriate will be addressed and may result in that member of the public being removed from the hearing. Chair, I now return to the script and note that commissioners must disclose any ex parte context, prior hearing observations, biases, or conflicts of interest.

If this is a legislative matter, do we need to do these kinds of declarations? I mean, I'm happy to do that, but I've just, you know, for point of clarity.

Good morning. Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel. You are correct, Chair Chang. There is a difference between quasi-judicial proceedings where you are judging an application and legislative proceedings where you're considering policy. Nonetheless, I suggest that, you know, just kind of to make a statement just so it can potentially avoid procedural arguments later. But again, there is a difference between quasi-judicial and legislative. When you're sitting as policymakers, the requirements are not as stringent as when you're sitting as a judge body.

OK. OK.

We can proceed. Does any commissioner have anything to disclose? And if so, please state the nature of same and whether you can proceed.

So I have none. I've been involved with previous comp plan and this comp plan and the work sessions in preparation for this, but nothing to disclose.

And yes, we've had a lot of discussion and I have nothing to disclose regarding this comp plan.

I have nothing to disclose, and I can proceed. Does any party wish to challenge any commissioner member of the hearings body based on ex-party contacts, biases, or conflicts? As no challenges are presented prior to opening the hearing, does anyone have any procedural objections to the public hearing? Seeing none, the hearing is now open. Staff will proceed with a brief staff report.

Thank you, Chair. So the purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony and consider ordinance number 2026.015 and decide on the limited 2040 comprehensive plan amendments responding to LUBA's remand. We'll talk more about that later. And it's going to be important to focus the hearing on the remanded issues and related amendments. Per the order issued by the Board in association with initiating this hearing, the scope of this hearing is limited to compliance with the notice and remand procedures requirements identified, including ORS 197-610-6, OAR 660-018-0045, and DCC 2212-010. as well as the proposed amendments to former policy 10.1.3 as necessary to remove invocation of OAR 660-004-0040 as the authority to allow cluster and planned unit development on non-resource lands and consideration of weather policy. Former policy 10.1.3 conflicts with the implementing Deschutes County Code provisions regarding cluster... development, and if so, resolution of any such conflict, including by adoption of successor policy text, if appropriate. So relatively narrow hearing before you hear today. And the decision point, of course, is to adopt the limited remand package, adopt some other revised amendments, or decline to adopt. It's important to remember that this is, again, a limited remand proceeding. Written comments and oral comments must be directed to those remand issues. And comments or requested amendments outside the scope of the remand cannot be considered without a change in the board's order associated with this hearing. And it's important also to note that participation, because this is a matter on remand, is limited to parties that previously participated in 2040 comp plan hearings before the board. So over the past couple days, we received 21 emails from people. Of those, 20 were prior participants. So we're seeing a good continuity in participants. But it'll be important for each person who's going to testify today to self-certify that they have participated before the board in the 2040 comp plan process previously. So let's talk about these Luba remand issues.

So Luba remanded on- So one note, you mentioned 20 people participating. I didn't think to go chase that down before this meeting. Is that part of our package or not?

They've been uploaded to the record.

Yeah, so as I said, I just didn't think to go chase that down. either we could be provided with that or take a moment to review or something. Okay. Just my oversight.

Yeah, would you, so we could, we could, I could direct staff to make a printout of those to be made available to you today, or we could take a moment for you to have a chance to review those. Those are available at the project website online. Do you have any preferences associated with that?

I just didn't think to do that, no.

What would be your preference?

If they're emails and they're not large substantive attachments, it'd be great to have a printout. I don't know if that's, as I say, I'm not looking for a ream of paper at this point, though.

I'm going to ask Tanya if you could do that. Yes.

Yeah. So let's do that. That's fine. And then we'll know what we're looking at. Okay.

We'll arrive.

Or I mean, maybe Tanya, you could have, you could send the commissioners a link to where that, you know, where that testimony is, is uploaded and we could just take a quick look at it. Well, just logistics for today. We all have our phones. We could literally take five minutes.

I can go grab my laptop and do it too. It's just, yeah, oversight on my part.

Yeah, certainly, whatever the preference is. Would you like to take that moment to review those now or would you like to conclude the staff presentation then?

We can take a break after we finish this presentation if we want to do that.

Okay, sounds good. So, of course, we're talking about LUBA remanded the comp plan, and there were two issues on remand. The first had to do with the notice and hearings process, required additional notice to DLCD, which has been completed, as well as planning commission review, which has been completed. The planning commission heard this matter on August 23rd and unanimously recommended approval of these amendments. Second issue had to do with former policy 10.1.3. It was a requirement to clarify the treatment of exception lands versus non-resource lands. And in response to this, the ordinance package splits 10.1.3 into revised policies 10.1.3 and 10.1.4. A little history of the process here, you know, for a while. Initially going back into October of 2024 and preceded by an extensive public outreach in advance of that. So what is, again, what is within and outside the scope of the board? We're talking about notice and hearings, former policy 10.1.3, new 10.1.4, and those supplemental findings to the conforming amendments. What is not in scope today is full reopening of the 2040 plan, unrelated policy or map amendments, and certainly there's no site-specific development proposals before you today. So the former approach is, This amendment has a structure to it. The former approach was one policy addressing cluster and planned unit developments across different rural land categories. LUBA identified the need to separate non-resource lands from rural residential exception area analysis, and that resulted in the proposed policy split. And the revised structure preserves the future quasi-judicial review paths while removing the implications that OAR 660-004-0040 authorized cluster PUD on non-resource lands. So the new policy framework has 10.1.1 as a general 10-acre baseline for residential parcels. 10.1.2 allows cluster PUDs within residential areas in effect on October 4th, 2000. 10.1.3, sorry, that's 10.1.2. 10.1.3 deals with lands that are outside those areas with a Goal 3 or Goal 4 exception. And finally, 10.1.4 now deals with lands that are outside those areas designated as non-resource lands. And these policies are intended to operate together and address distinct rural residential cluster and PUD categories. So let's dig in a little deeper. So 10.1.3 for exception lands, these are parcels that were outside rural residential areas in effect on October 2000. And that land has since received a Goal 3 exception, Goal 4 exception, or both. For those types of lands clustered in plan unit developments, future approval will remain quasi-judicial and require Goal 14 applicable state law and county implementing regulation requirements. New 10.1.4 deals with non-resourced lands. So most of our rezones in recent years from EFU to from farm zones property to residential property have been non-resourced. And so these are lands that were not in rural residential lands on October 4, 2000 designated as non-resourced subsequently under OER 660.004.0005 sub 3. And clustered in PUDs, OER 660.004.004.0 is not the approval authority. for these lands and they require site-specific Goal 14 analysis and compliance with county implementing regulations. So what the adoption would decide, again, if this was approved by the board, it does not approve, guarantee, vest, or authorize development. It doesn't establish independent minimum lot sizes. It doesn't create legislative safe harbors for clusters or PUDs on non-resource lands. It does not make county code compliance alone sufficient where Goal 14 or other state law analysis is required. And it doesn't disturb the non-remanded findings except where expressly remanded or superseded. Again, the Planning Commission recommended on, sorry, July 23rd, recommended approval of this application package. And the record is available in its entirety at www.deschutescounty.gov forward slash Deschutes 2040 remand. And with that, I'm available for any questions.

Question about the Planning Commission. Were all members present or is there? Yes. Okay, thank you.

And so what was the vote?

Unanimous. Unanimous. It was unanimous.

Okay.

And then Commissioner Dare, as I say, I'm comfortable going to grab my laptop to review those documents, and you mentioned paper.

I like paper, if it's possible.

So if we're going to print, then I'll take a copy too, and that's how we'll do it, just making sure we're clear.

Well, I mean, I have to say, we all know how these processes work. We all know what's in the public record. If you didn't go and look at it before today's hearing, then... You certainly knew that it was available and you had the opportunity to do so. So, I mean, I want to provide you with some accommodation here because, you know, as you said, you just didn't have a chance to look at this. But, you know... This shouldn't take up 20 minutes or half an hour of our time because we have a lot of things on our agenda and we have a tight timeline to stick to our schedule. So I'm just asked that we get a link. You take a couple of minutes to look on, you know, electronically at this and then we proceed.

Two of us just asked for paper.

I always get paper. I prepare paper. I have binders. I didn't get a paper copy this time.

Okay. So what are we doing here? A 10-minute recess? Is that sufficient?

Well, I mean, this is a public hearing. We can listen to testimony. It's just an item that I want to have before we come to a deliberation.

So you want to hear the testimony first?

Right.

Okay. Because what you just said was that you wanted the staff report and then you wanted to go and read the materials.

She's going to go get it. Thank you.

So we can proceed with any public testimony? Okay. Okay. All right. At this time, we will receive public testimony on file number 247-26-000409-A, a hearing on the Deschutes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Limited Remit. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify on this matter? Eric, are there any hands raised online? This is an extremely limited remand on a very narrow and specific subject or a comp plan that is incredibly flawed in many ways. And in my mind, would merit major other overhaul and revision. But I'm not surprised that nobody wants to testify on this very limited issue. All right. Do you want to take our break now for you to go read your testimony, your written testimony?

We can probably just bring this item back and do a couple other agenda items.

There was no one here to testify?

Of course not.

Well, I did see someone getting a blue farm, so.

Yeah.

Yeah, I propose that we just proceed with a few other agenda items and get back to this before we adjourn today.

um we are uh you know the way that our our agenda is written we could be done with this meeting by lunchtime so this is not necessarily an adjourn for lunch and then come back uh type kind of meeting um so i i since you wanted the you wanted the time i'd suggest we just take it now we we um we go to recess for 10 or 15 or 20 or whatever amount of time you wanted and then we come back that's fine then we'll be on closer to a schedule for our next item anyways 10 25 so how much time would you like 10 to 20 minutes

I don't have the papers in front of me at this point in time. I'm not sure how long that's going to take. We can reconvene when we have it and review for 10 minutes, but I don't have it yet.

Well, what would you propose as a time to reconvene?

1025.

Let's shoot for 1015. Okay, we will now recess until 10.15. We are now returning from our recess from the middle of item number 11 on our agenda. We have heard – well, we did not hear any oral testimony today. Commissioners have had a chance to review the written testimony that has been submitted today. At this time, does staff have any closing comments on this hearing matter?

Thank you, Chair. Just a correction. The Planning Commission hearing, I always had my notes scrambled. So with that one, there were only four members present. This was during fire season, and there were some people out otherwise. And it's also important to note that that was a Planning Commission review rather than a hearing. Yep. So they were unanimously supportive of recommending this forward to the board, but there were only four of them at this meeting. I was thinking about the prior meeting.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yes. Thank you, Will.

Do you have any other staff closing comments, Will?

No other closing comments. As you're ready, we can talk about what happens after this. I guess if there's no oral presentation at this point, the board is in a position to discuss and potentially deliberate if that's the board's pleasure today.

At this time, what is the preference of my fellow commissioners? You want to continue the hearing to a date and time certain, close the oral portion, and leave the written record open to a date and time certain, close the hearing, and schedule deliberations for a date and times to be determined, or close the hearing and commence deliberations now.

I'm comfortable proceeding with deliberations at this time.

To close the hearing first, yes.

So choice number four, close the hearing and commence deliberations now. Okay. We will now close the public hearing and commence deliberations.

So thanks for taking the time for me to review these emails. These emails came in the last 24, you know, a day or day and a half. So as I say, I didn't know to even check them this morning. They did come in kind of in a blast fashion the last few days. So I'm glad we were able to take the moment. It looks like it's kind of a form letter setting for most of these folks too, and they have participated in the past. So I want to thank them for their participation. There's a very specific question here, which is to require exception to Goal 14 as part of the comprehensive plan effort. I don't support that, but I don't – Will, any thoughts about could we or would we put – say we're going to extra super duty follow this goal because we have to follow the goals anyways. Any concepts in there that – could we say we want to do that? Yeah. No matter what?

Yeah, certainly, Commissioner. In the end, it's your comprehensive plan, and cluster and plan unit developments are optional. So it would be certainly within your purview either through this process or a subsequent process to say that you didn't want these at all or in certain circumstances or wanted to limit them or provide additional specifications. Mm-hmm. And it actually, in fact, had been planning's understanding and likely that we'll come back to as part of a work plan for a general tidy up of cluster and planned unit developments as part of a subsequent action, if that's the board's pleasure in the work plan. There's some things in the zoning code that would also benefit from alignment with if this is, in fact, the adopted package or some variant of it. So certainly the board could, as a policy, say we don't intend to allow cluster or planned developments. What you're seeing in this package is sort of pushing up against the boundaries of Goal 14. So Goal 14 provides very specific limitations on that. safe harbors, but counties are not mandated to allow these types of developments. And so the choice to both allow them and to allow them as fully as sideboarded by administrative rule is what's presented here today, but other options are only possible.

Got it. And then we're specifically mentioning two-acre minimum, which we hadn't done before, right? I mean, the previous COMP plan didn't say two acres hard.

So what we're doing, there was some concern about the Deschutes County planning effort creating an independent minimum associated with these uses. And so instead, we're referring out to the Goal 14 language to make it clear that we're not trying to supersede that or get sideways of it in any way. You know, what you're going to see, of course, is that the comp plan here is ahead of the zoning code. The zoning code continues to have a no minimum lot size in the planned unit development. And the intention and understanding is that this comprehensive plan will close that door in alignment with goal 14. But subsequently, we'd want to come back and patch the zoning code so that a good faith applicant was aware that this was, in fact, a limitation and that they wouldn't have to go searching in the comprehensive plan to find that requirement.

So for clarity for goal 14, urbanization, there's a difference between a property at the edge of an urban growth boundary and a property distant rural from the perimeter of a city. I mean, that's one of the scenarios we're working with here. There could be a different interpretation depending on how close you are to a city.

Certainly. So when you think about the administrative rule scheme, the notion is that it's generally supportive or at least permissive of cluster and planned unit developments. And it assumes that those cluster and planned unit developments that fall within either the pre-2000 October 4, 2000 date or have received goal exceptions with the safe harbor sideboards that are in OER 660-004-004. that those are inherently rural, so that there's no further analysis required to determine if those are rural. For the non-resourced lands, that safe harbor does not exist. So if someone was going to apply for a cluster plan unit development on non-resourced land, they would be making an additional argument to say, hey, these lots are smaller than 10 acres, bigger than two. And we believe that this is an inherently rural use because. And some of those can be locational factors. So something, you know, if you were to come in with a non-resource land that was immediately adjacent to the city of Ben's boundary, the clustered lots were pushed up against that city boundary. The streets continued. Water potentially was brought through. There was a bus stop. put in. At that point, there would be under the Curry and Schaefer cases, there would be a legal analysis argument that said that really, this is a kind of a de facto expansion of the city. These are urban uses, and we should be skeptical of those. Conversely, you know, ones that are out in the middle of nowhere, the analysis would be, is this lot size an urban development pattern? And, you know, that could be, that's all fact specific. And there's some case law that goes into some depth about, you know, multi-factor tests that you do to determine if something's

inherently rural or urban so they would have to go through that analysis rather than being able to rely on the goal 14 safe harbors great thank you so as i say uh thank you very much for taking time to be able to review these emails they did come in quickly in the last 24 hours or so so i'm glad i caught that said oh there may be a set of information i haven't seen uh

Will, thank you for that rundown. It does make me wonder, you know, in that setting right next to the urban growth boundary, it actually seems silly to me to have a two-acre minimum lot size for cluster development. So, I mean, you know, that close to the UGB, if the UGB is going to gobble you up… In 5, 10, 15 years, it almost seems like you should be able to do even tighter clusters and save even more land for future urbanization and set the pattern that is eventually going to absorb that area. So would it be possible to kind of – recognizing the input that we've received, would it be possible to say that you can do even tighter clustering within a certain zone or with a certain range of a UGB and get a, you know, with the requirement that you get a goal 14 exception, because that is essentially doing urban density development right on the edge of a city.

I see the nature of the question. I think I actually haven't done that legal analysis. I don't know if Stephanie has. This actually hasn't come before me today. I see the question, but I don't know the answer to it.

Good morning again, Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel. Yes, I understand the question as well, Chair Chang. These applications, let's say you've gotten that property rezoned, so now it's a non-resource land amendment, and then you're coming in. Well, no, if you're trying to seek that non-resource land amendment, because that's where this question could come up. And you're right on the edge. I think that the applicant is going to have to look at the actual facts on the ground. You know, are there streets that are going to be extended? Is there water that's going to be extended? You know, a lot of the questions have to do like, are you are you pulling people that would be, you know, using urban services inside the city into the rural area, which would still be rural? If it's within the county's jurisdiction. So an applicant would have to satisfy that and and potentially get a goal 14 exception for that proposed reason and plan amendment before they could proceed to a cluster. for PUD development. But my answer here is really to note that it is very SPAC specific. And in the context of the comprehensive plan, which is kind of the overarching policy, for the county. I might suggest if I was sitting in your shoes, that that question be left up to the individual circumstances of the applications. I don't know if what you're asking is, should we add to this policy or should we add another policy that talks about land that's touching an urban growth boundary or not? I'm not sure I understand the question fully, but I think I understand what you're looking at generally. And I don't know that it makes a lot of sense to start carving out, you know, kind of more and more circumstances where, yo, we could actually have a smaller lot size, you know, because again, I think that it's going to, you've also got state regulations on cluster and plan developments. And then we've got our zoning code that would also have to flow from that and potentially be fixed. So I think it's a good question to be considering, but I don't know that it necessarily fits in what we're trying to fix here on the remand from LUBA.

Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that. And, you know, I definitely want to flag it for future discussion. This is this is not a hypothetical scenario. We have this board has rezoned hundreds of acres of land wrapped around the east side of the city of Bend. uh and the south side of the city of bend in the last few years and um if you know we've also talked about you know kind of what we can do to ensure that that that land is held uh until until the city is ready to to bring it into the urban growth boundary haven't made a lot of progress on that so far um so i guess you know i think what i'm suggesting is just another way of skinning the cat on that on that on that issue so um because i would you know those lands that you know those hundreds of acres that are right on the edge of the city of bend you know um We have similar kinds of concerns on the edges of the City of Sisters. The stated intent of most of those applicants for rezones was to prepare themselves for urban growth boundary. And, you know, what better way of preparing them for the urban growth boundary expansion than allowing them to start to develop urban density development right on the edge of the UGB and preserve more of their lands for higher value use when ultimately their parcel is brought into the UGB. So, yeah. Yeah, I mean, again, today we are dealing with an extremely limited item, and I'll just flag that for future work and consideration by CDD staff. As we continue to grapple with how you get these lands that are rezoned right on the edge of the city to their intended long-term purpose.

I think we have Title 18, Title 19 kind of stuff. So there is a holding area or whatever the terminology is there. And then also City of Redmond did their urban reserve plan years ago. And City of Bend has just done urban growth boundary expansions. Ever since 2008, it's been just... trying to manage growth in the city of ben so uh partner needs to be there with the city of ben because i think we've i've asked i was like why isn't the next step to do an urban reserve plan they're like no panic time we need to go to urban growth expansion again so yeah having a partner there is is uh and then working on the urban reserve afterwards yeah that's their that's their intent

But the way that the state rules are written nowadays around urban reserves, it really does make the most sense to do your UGB expansion first and then do the reserve afterwards, which is their intention.

What I'm referring to, the last urban growth expansion and the urban reserve effort could have been now. As I say, I'm not making decisions for them. I'm just an observer.

And back in 2006 they could have done their urban growth boundary proposal right and not gotten it remanded. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Thank you.

And the state could have had a system which allowed that urban growth expansion request which might have helped the cost of housing because it took 10 years and cost millions of dollars to do that urban growth expansion for the city of Bend and they've been behind the power curve ever since.

The state had pretty clear rules, and the city chose not to work within the rules.

From the state. One size fits all.

Our state land use planning system, which is the reason that we have done a better job of preserving farm and forest land and open space than any other state in the western U.S.,

And then there's that conundrum of unproductive farmland, which we tried to do a concept of a non-prime farmland, but there's just a hard stop there. There's no discussions.

Because of the way that you have... We could go on for a while here. Because of the way that you have attempted it. Yeah. Okay.

Me. Everybody but you.

Who's been on the board for 16 years?

As I say, I'm comfortable with all the decisions I've made.

Okay. Yeah.

And the decisions you haven't been able to make because of the way that you've approached the issues. Okay. So to continue with this, additional deliberation. Okay.

Thank you. Well, so I do lean, so the deliberations, I do lean into supporting this package as presented as to say we're doing just a very slight change here. You know, it is a big picture. It is all the history of Deschutes County from 1916 on and the state land use system from 1973. But I do support proceeding with this proposed change as presented.

Is that a motion?

I was just trying to, yeah, deliberations moving forward, Sharon.

All right. No. Thank you, Will, for taking this over. And yes, I concur with Commissioner Devon.

Do you want to make a motion?

Sure.

Let's see, I move.

Approving? Do you want a motion now?

Yeah, and I don't know if this was in. I think a sample motion with Kim's review would be to move approval of 409A, the remand that would be approving the package and the decision and instructing staff to come back for a first reading at a date convenient to your calendar.

Okay, so move.

Second.

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

So just big picture observation. I look at this page 1-6 county timeline, the statehood, the city of Benning Corporation and Redmond before the county of Deschutes in 1916, the comprehensive plan efforts. 1970, I think, was a moment where... Deschutes County thought, oh, what are we going to do here? And it was still logging. In 1973, the state land use system enacted. Everybody was celebrating it. Tom McCall, moderate Republican from Primeville, very, very much everybody's on the same page. And then we've only seen a few comprehensive plans officially published since then. So I was honored and privileged to be accepting and adopting the 2010 plan. We did that in 2011. So this is kind of the second version that I've been involved in. And what a great document to be able to review, get the big picture, understand some history and what the opportunities are for living in Deschutes County and enjoying being here.

Commissioner Adair, any other comments?

No.

Well, I'll just say that this extremely limited item that we are reviewing today, I'm glad that we are having discussions about it, is cluster and plan developments are an important tool for efficient and thoughtful land use planning. That said, because this is an extremely limited item that we are discussing today, within a draft comprehensive plan that is extremely flawed and problematic, in large part because it ignores the input of our constituents, I will still not be supporting this limited remand revision. So with that, should we call for the vote? Or is there any further deliberation?

Call for the vote.

Commissioner Adair? Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Chair votes no. Thank you.

I'll return to you with a first reading. Commute to your calendar. Thank you.

Will you come back or will Nicole be back?

Oh, Will, don't say that.

Lucky her. Lucky her.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Will.

Okay. Item number 12, Pilot Butte Canal Infrastructure Modernization Project Determination of Adverse Impacts and Invitation to Consult.

Apologies for the wordy title.

And I'll just flag that we do have Adam Smith representing CUID in the audience in case anyone wants to ask him any questions.

Yes. I'll also note, for the record, Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner. We also have John Skidmore from COID on Zoom, I believe, assuming the Zoom worked. And we also have Gary Deridoni from NRCS. So the experts are available for questions. So I'm going to provide an overview of the memorandum that I provided to the board. There's a lot of pieces to it, so please bear with me. A lot of abbreviations, but I'll do my best to kind of unpack this request that has been put before staff and therefore the board. So staff is here today to request direction from the board regarding an invitation from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, otherwise known as NRCS, for consultation. This invite is for the Historic Landmarks Commission of Deschutes County, otherwise known as the HLC. to participate in consultation on the development of a Memorandum of Agreement concerning mitigation measures to address the adverse effects of the COID Pilot Butte Canal Infrastructure Modernization Project on the Pilot Butte Canal Historic District, Coulee to Yeoman Road segment. NRCS requests a response by August 14th, so that's why we're before you today. I'll summarize what all of this means in a moment, and I've already noted that we have representatives from NRCS as well as COID available for questions as well. I'll note up front that this request is a component of a required federal process that's triggered due to the canal's National Register of Historic Places status. It's not a discussion of the worthiness of the piping project itself or the historic value of the canal. A little bit of background, so the Pilot Butte Canal Historic District Cooley to Yeoman Road segment was nominated to the National Register and listed in 2016. This portion of the canal encompasses about 17 acres and that's about 10% of the entire canal. The canal and all the resources within the historic district boundary are owned and operated by CUID. The project proposes to pipe and pressurize the open canal portions of the Pilot Butte Canal from Northeast 17th Street in Redmond to the diversion point from the Deschutes River in Bend. According to NRCS and their materials, the project is needed to address watershed problems and resource concerns, including water loss in the COID conveyance systems, water delivery, and operation and maintenance inefficiencies, which includes risk to public safety. Excuse me. So now to get to the request that was given to us. On July 15th, staff, myself as the liaison to the HLC, received correspondence from NRCS noting that the agency had made a finding of adverse effects determination for this project, for this portion of the canal, the historic district. Previously, a similar finding had been found for the portion of the canal that's within the City of Redmond. And additional mitigation measures were added to a programmatic agreement for that segment within the City of Redmond. So they developed some mitigation strategies to address this piping project in that chunk of the canal. And those activities included development of a pocket park with salvaged elements of the canal, a video documentary, and a print publication on the history of irrigation efforts in central Oregon. So that's the type of measures that are often utilized. The request of the county included an invitation for the HLC to participate in consultation on a memorandum of agreement for the mitigation of adverse effects of the project on this segment, as I stated before. The HLC, it's a certified local government, otherwise known as a CLG. I told you there'd be lots of letters. And we've discussed CLG before when I've come before you for grants. The CLG program promotes historic preservation through federal and state partnerships. Federal agencies are required to invite CLGs to comment on project undertakings that fall under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. And because the HLC serves in an advisory capacity to the board, that is why staff is bringing this question to the board today before responding to NRCS. According to NRCS, consultation requests have also been sent to the State Historic Preservation Office, COID, the Bureau of Reclamation, Confederated Tribes of Warren Springs, and the Coalition to Preserve Historic Pilot Butte Canal. And I've touched on this earlier, but staff notes that this request is part of a standard federal process. It's not a request for comment on the necessity of the project or the status of the canal. Rather, it's a request to participate in a consulting effort to help determine the mitigation that's required by law to address the adverse effects that it has determined will occur to this listed Pilot Butte Canal Historic District, except for from any future local process. And I'll get into that in a moment. So concerning the decision of the board to direct the HLC to either participate in consultation or not participate in consultation, staff wants to make the board aware that COID will be required to submit a land use application and receive county approval relating to this piping at some point in the future. So this is a local process. um we don't know the details of the application yet it would at minimum include goal 5 proceedings because in addition to being a national register property it's also listed on the local goal 5 list as well as a quasi-judicial land use process for the piping itself so it will come before the board as well as the hlc in public hearings And again, that's separate from the federal process. So the issue at hand potentially is the board should consider whether county participation by the HLC and the board in this federal process that is up for determination today, could that affect actual or perceived impartiality in the future local proceedings? That's sort of the crux of the matter there. staff bringing to the board. If the board does authorize participation, staff recommends that the HLC and board involvement be limited to mitigation measures and memorandum of agreement completeness and not include comments on whether the project should be approved or denied through any future local land use application. So in other words, keep it real narrow, exactly kind of what they want and not diverge from that at all. And with that, staff has prepared two letters from the board to select from today. One is agreeing to participate or directing the HLC to participate, and one declining, citing those future possibilities of perception of impartiality or actual impartiality. That was kind of a lot of a lot. But that's my summary of the request at hand. I will turn to NRCS or COID if they want to provide any additional information or if they just want to wait to see if the board has any questions.

One question I would have is a little bit, you mentioned the Redmond section and mitigation. So that's the areas that's already piped and there's a history there? Because I guess I don't know anything about it.

No, it's the same project. The future project. Yeah, it's just basically they kind of addressed their segment before they addressed this segment.

Okay, so for this future piping phase.

Exactly, so they kind of developed their mitigation measures a little earlier.

I just thought it might have been for some of the sections that are already piped, because I know it comes and goes a few times.

Right, there's been a lot of piping.

So when did they do that in Redmond? Sorry? What year did they do that in Redmond?

The mitigation measures? Right. Well, they just developed them, I believe, this year, I think. COID or NRCS could maybe pop in.

My recollection is that the historic designation for these two sections took place at the same time.

The designation, yes. Oh, but are you speaking of the designation?

I'm just saying they said they're going to do a pocket park and everything for Redmond. Correct. Those have not happened yet. They have not happened. That's just suggested.

I'll turn to NRCS Gary there.

Please join us.

Thank you. I'm the Watershed Program Lead here in Oregon. And so a number of mitigation measures to include a pocket park have been identified to mitigate the effects to the um the cool yeoman segment as part of the larger project and specifically i'll let john to speak to that um because it is part of the planning effort and then as part of the secondary permitting process that's been identified and actually working out what's required for the actual process that the districts are then responsible for thank you gary thank you uh for letting me um

provide some information on this and i'm zooming in from boise idaho and right as i sit down the housekeepers were knocking on the door so i apologize uh i think you are looking to get better understanding of the historic district in redmond and so i'll give a real brief background but coid has been working on preservation um and really celebration of our history for 13, 14 years. We started working with the Bureau of Rec, SHPO, COID back in 2013. We did a very, very detailed reconnaissance level survey. We've done multiple property documentation, and that all led to a programmatic agreement for the Central Oregon Project, which is the entirety of the COID facilities. There's a lot more detail to it, but as part of that process that we started in 2013, COID nominated two segments to be listed on the National Historic or the National Register of Historic Places. One is the Redmond stretch. So if you're driving up 97 on your left, you'll see the bike pump park where the little, the bike park is. That stretch is a historic section. That's where... I believe his name was Frank Redmond, uh, initially, uh, homesteaded. And then we had also nominated another section, um, in the Brasada, uh, area, which is an old flume, um, that wasn't put on the national historic registry. The Redmond, um, segment was, and then there's been two other nominations, um, submitted by property owners along the canal. And this section, Cooley to Redmond, or Cooley to Yeoman, that was nominated by neighbors to the canal. And then we also have another historic section on the Central Oregon Canal, a similar nomination process with adjacent neighbors nominating it.

Did that one, was that one confirmed then?

That was, and the Brasada, the Brasada nomination did not make it. that's on the central Oregon canal as well.

Um, but it was, um, confirmed what in 2016 or 18 in 2016 that was nominated.

And I believe listed in 2017, COID nominated the Redmond and the Brasada, um, Redmond was listed. And then in 2018, um, neighbors nominated that different section on the CO canal. And that was the one that was chosen. A little confusing.

Okay. So my thought process is who is the substantive kind of negotiation group here? So our HLC, our group, is that the right task for that, you know, for the effort of the people that represent Deschutes County citizens?

As far as my understanding goes is because they are CLG, that is the trigger. So that is the way the program is designed. They're required to request input from the HLC and CLG. They're not required to use that input. they are just required to invite that body to participate. So, you know, NRCS I believe would manage that process and we would work with the HLC and the NRCS as necessary to figure out the nuts and bolts of how that actually works, but by law it's my understanding that the HLC as a certified local government is the body. Anything that comes from the HLC would pass through the board before being relayed up to the decision makers, because again, the HLC is an advisory committee to the board, but they are the ones who would be kind of on the ground doing that consultation.

And the concern with a future land use application is around the HLC. So if they participated in this mitigation planning process, then they would have conflicts when we got to reviewing the application.

It would be probably most likely the HLC as well as the board, because ultimately it does need to be run up through the board. And both of those bodies would participate in a future land use process. So it could really impact both the impartiality of both of those boards. I see we have Adam Smith here.

Adam Smith, Bobby Williams in Hawaii at 360 Southwest Bond Street, Suite 500, Bend, Oregon, 97702 on behalf of COID. Yeah, COID's concern was that it wouldn't be limited to the HLC. It would also potentially include the county commissioners. We don't know what that land use application is. Going to be at it will be partially informed by this process, but this process is the start. Well, it's not even necessarily start and see what he's been at this for a number of years. It is a mid step and a process that is almost undeniably going to result in a land use proceeding that will be. squarely within the county commissioner's jurisdiction, HLC in the county commissioner's jurisdiction. As I know the county commissioners are well aware, Commissioner Dubon in particular, you know, the case law has morphed, has changed on even ex parte communication. And it used to be that it wasn't ex parte communication unless the application was immediately in front of you. That's changed now. And any communication about a project, whether you know or don't know, any communication ever that results in a project is technically now ex parte and needs to at least be disclosed. But we're also seeing increased arguments on bias that are necessarily coming from some of these other kind of things. So CIDs not shine away from the process. CID itself will be intimately involved there. Just want to ensure that if and when we get to the land use proceeding, which we will, this cannot get done without the land use proceeding, that the county is in a position to have a fair and impartial hearing at that time, both the HLC and the county commissioners. For all participants, not just UID. We're trying to protect the process for everybody. Yeah.

I'll just mention that because of my status as one of the chairs of the Deschutes Basin Water Collaborative, which is developing a plan which relies on canal piping as one of the pillars of conserving water so that we can put it in other places where it's needed. I am concerned I'm conflicted out already, which – If I'm conflicted already when that land use application comes, then there's nothing holding me back from engaging in this mitigation discussion right now. So I would like to better understand the timeframes for these two processes because – If I'm conflicted out already and this whole mitigation process happens within the next few months before this board turns over, then you would have four commissioners potentially who are not conflicted out. on this, because of their concern about water resources management more broadly in the region, to review a land use application at a later date. So can any of you clarify for me what the timeframes for both this mitigation planning process are and the Um, and the next process and the land use application process.

I can't speak to the timing, but I would, I do want to, I don't know if it's a formal conflict of interest. The conflicts of interest are mostly following financial involvement. And I'm, I'm skeptical that you would have a formal conflict of interest because of your, uh, other advocacy and work. Instead, it's more of an issue of ex parte communication and the potentially bias in the ladies. I'm just going to clarify on some of those other kinds of issues. I can't answer the timing people.

So maybe I'll clarify and say I am likely biased out based on my participation in various policy discussions. And I do believe that was the basis for Commissioner Unger to step out of a much earlier decision on a canal piping project in the past.

So I think... potentially Gary and I can tag team on the timelines. So for this section 106 process, which is we're currently working through, I know that NRCS provided the county until I believe August 14th to determine whether or not the county would like to be a consulting party as part of the memorandum of agreement. From there, and Gary, correct me if I get it wrong, my understanding is NRCS will send out an additional notice with the proposed memorandum of agreement, which would detail the mitigation plan. And then we would set a date and time certain to meet with consulting parties and concurring parties. Concurring parties need to sign off on it. Consulting parties can comment, and their comments can be accepted or not. The timeline for that is probably not going to start until, what do you think, late August or early September?

Yeah, I think as part of the 30-day initial SHPO process and then moving forward with the actual consultation and development of the MOA, And then arranging those initial meetings, I think we're looking at some time in September. And then that process itself, the MOA consultation and conferring parties is not expected to take a long time at all. And so if you're, I heard the board talking about potential turnover, it's likely to occur before that, that we're looking at. Essentially before the close of the calendar year and finishing out the entire process.

So maybe early September to December.

Somewhere in there.

And then does, does CYD have any sense of when a land use application might be forthcoming? Is it, is it?

At this point, Commissioner, we're really focused on getting our environmental impact statement completed, um, which would allow us to start building the canal and we'd, we'd start Redmond and move south. Um, This Section 106 process, which was a bit of a surprise to us, we thought we had covered it through our programmatic agreement. SHPO saw it differently, and we firmly disagree with that, but SHPO gets to make that call. We are trying to finish up this EIS process, which can't be completed until we finish this 106 Memorandum of Agreement process. Once we've established that, we're gonna start working on piping from the north to south. And my guess is a land use application to complete piping in one of the last sections of the project is probably at least a year out, maybe two. There's a sequence of events that needs to occur and we're fully committed to doing it. There's just some other things we need to get moving before we start looking at the southern section of the Pilot Butte Canal.

um and john can you remind me so you've been working coid has been working on smith rocked king's way in the last few years um the basically is this does this project pick up you you mentioned starting at the at the far north end and working your way south, I mean, is basically everything from this EIS-studied segment north already piped on the Pilot Butte Canal, or are there other open sections?

So we did an environmental assessment for the section of the Pilot Butte Canal at the very north end that's been constructed to date. There are financial limits on what an EAA can cover. I think it was a $25 million limit on federal funding. The full blown environmental impact statement doesn't have that cap. So that is why we did the EIS for the remainder of the Pilot Butte Canal. And this next section that we're looking to build, which We have funding for, we have gone through the procurement process. We have our pipe material chosen. We have our CMGC team together. We just need this EIS to be assigned so we can move along and start building that and that section, We'll generally run from Kingway to, again, if you're driving on 97 to Redmond, there's Home Depot on your left. It basically stops there. And then the next section would be starting from just adjacent to Home Depot south to Redmond. spacing on the name right near airport way um so that's that's the next segment but we're we're ready to roll on this uh king's way section um we just need to complete this environmental impact statement uh so we can get moving on it okay thank you um i have a few more questions but is there are there any from my fellow commissioners okay um

So that Redmond historic district segment has been kind of presented as an example of how mitigation of piping a historic segment could work. Is there a possibility that there will be other ideas for mitigation that come out of this process? Or is basically that the menu for what would be looked at?

Well, as part of our 2025 programmatic agreement, we have a mitigation package for what we thought was the entirety of the Pilot View Canal, but now it's just being ascribed to the Redmond segment. That would consist of interpretive signage and kiosks along the trail, along the canal. We'd work on a professionally created video talking about the history of agriculture and irrigation in Central Oregon. We'd have a professionally done 100-page or so white paper on the history of irrigation and agriculture in Central Oregon. And then we'd also put an entry into the Oregon Encyclopedia. What's being discussed for this next section, this 106 section, consists of some similar ideas, video of the canal, both when water is flowing, when it's not, working with property owners, with a landscape designer to come up with ideas for what it looks like once it's piped, a kiosk and a little trail along I've already been in touch with Ben Parks and Recreation District, who owns property south of Yeoman Road. Interestingly, this historic segment does not have public access through it, so we really wouldn't be able to mitigate on private property, but we've been working with Ben Parks and Recreation District, and they seem amenable. They're going to be a consulting party as well. But yeah, additional documentation, use of, you know, some of the old infrastructure, you know, whether it's lava rocks or old head gates or those types of things, highlighting those. So, you know, we celebrate our history. And I heard Commissioner DeBone talking about some of the historic timelines. Interestingly, COID was really started by Alexander Drake, who... platted the first few lots in Bend. The Pilot Butte Power and Irrigation Company actually was used as the meeting place for the first City of Bend City Council meetings. So there's a pretty close relationship between the history of Bend, Deschutes County, Crook County, and COID, and all the irrigation districts. We're very proud of that. We like to celebrate it. We have a A lot of cool history. We're not shying away from it. We're just thinking in this instance, the county is going to have a more, probably a closer view of this with a local land use application. And we can talk about additional mitigations in more detail through that process.

Your idea established in Crook County back in the day, about 20 years before there was a Deschutes County.

Yeah, I believe Alexander Drake started the pilot butte irrigation in power company in 1900.

So it was a power company?

Yes, with some of the dams and things.

Okay. Going back to the committee and the process, you mentioned that there was both consulting and a concurring kind of status. Is there anything else? I mean, it's ex officio type status? You know, we're here to provide information that the county has access to, but not to, you know, provide information that might be helpful. But we are not here to, you know, provide any input or concur or anything like that. And I guess the other related question is, you know, is this a pretty open and accessible public process if the county plays no role? Is it, you know, are members of the board or staff welcome to just, you know, come sit and watch and listen?

I'm going to have to let Gary take that. This is my first rodeo with an MOA, so...

As part of the SHPO MOA development, no. You have the consulting and the party and the conferencing group that are participating in that. And those groups interested in joining would have been identified at that Section 106 letter when it was advertised. John can speak more to the LUB process, which may or may not. I'm unaware about that part going forward.

I'm sorry, Gary, which process?

The land use where you have to secure the local permitting process. Oh, gotcha, gotcha.

Oh, yeah. No, I wasn't asking about that.

Just about the mitigation group. Okay. So this is a pretty closed process, basically, if we don't want to accept the invitation and come in as a participant.

Correct. Okay. Okay. okay and i would know just to not to be redundant but um there will be a very hands-on opportunity for the county to engage as we work through this local land use process so um again and we're we're happy to engage in those conversations and um but I think our feelings, Adam did a good job of sharing that, but from an impartiality point of view, we would request that you defer on the consulting status.

Well, I mean, for the land use application, the county would be at the center of it, but that is not necessarily a time to advocate, you know, for, you know, certain kinds of mitigation measures that, you know, the county's role is to be a neutral arbiter, you know, an evaluator of an application. So it is, you know, I think it's kind of different, but I mean, you can correct me if that doesn't sound right.

As we're going to be discussing a Goal 5 resource, I think there is that mitigation component of the conversation with the local land use application. Adam, I don't know if you have additional thoughts on that, but this isn't a strict site plan conditional use application. This is a an amendment to your goal five list. In my mind, that would suggest opportunities for mitigation measures that the county would like to see, but I'll let Adam take it from there.

Two things. First, to use your same terminology, Commissioner Chang, I think our concern is that there could be future procedural objections because it's very hard to be a neutral arbiter after you have advocated. And then when it comes to the land use proceedings and they give or take, I mean, this is a goal 5, it would be amendments to the county's goal 5 program. I mean, the applicant. Make suggestions, but ultimately those decisions are on the county. And so there is, I think a little bit of. Well, there's certainly a. opportunities to be working through some of those kinds of issues, or at least there have been in past Goal 5 projects, right? Like, I mean, if, for example, in any EC analysis, the applicants prepare it, but it's ultimately adopted by the board. I mean, it's the board's analysis that gets put forward and the board's decision on how we're and how the county is going to address those kinds of issues. So the applicant, at least the custom is that the applicant prepares work, but it's ultimately the county commissioners and presuming that it's going to be that same kind of level of project with whatever the land use applications ultimately look like for this, for this project. I think I agree with John. I think there will be an opportunity for some collaboration through the goal five process and the amendments to the goal five program. But again, and I'm sorry if I'm reiterating, the concern is that any opponent, CYD, anybody else, if they feel like they didn't – if they don't like the outcome, if they feel like they don't get a fair shake and the county has already – advocate it for a certain position, it makes it very hard to be a neutral arbiter later. And then that's going to just hold up the land use decision with procedural arguments. It's about protecting the sanctity of that future process.

And like I said, I think I'm probably already biased out because of my status as one of the co-chairs of the Deschutes Basin Water Collaborative.

And I understand entirely Commissioner Chang, it's HLC's participation, the county, future county commissioner. I mean, it's, yeah, I understand your individual circumstances. It's, we're just noting the broader concern for other individuals who may be involved.

Okay.

My final question is very mechanical. How many miles or linear feet of canal are we talking about? You mentioned 17 acres of area affected.

The plan identified 18.5 miles in total. Speaking to directly the Yeoman Cooley section, I don't have the actual mileage on that. Do you, John?

If you give me a moment, I can GIS it.

Yeah, or, I mean, just like a course, you know, are we talking miles? Are we talking less than a mile?

It says in here 6,780 feet in the document. 1.2 miles.

That sounds about right.

It's in the document.

I missed that part. Thank you for that.

It's been studied.

Okay.

So I do have a question for Stephanie. Are you allowed to answer a question? I've been aware of this 1.2 miles before I got in office because someone that lived here was really concerned about the historic, and they did get the historic designation. So honestly, by having our Historic Landmark Commission participate, does that really complicate the issue in this?

It could complicate the issue because the future land use application, and excuse me, I am addressing a medical part of my constitution here. The land use application would be before you as a quasi-judicial hearings body. So understand your long-term application attention on this potential issue. And what the board ultimately may decide today would impact, potentially impact, the ability to sit as quasi-judicial decision makers in the future on the piping proposal. Okay.

Whichever board members are

Correct. That is correct.

Are seated at the time that the application comes forward.

Okay. But what I'm asking is if we actually ask the HLC to do something now and they don't come back till, let's say, next year, those people, would they still have an issue because we engaged with the HLC in this negotiation? Yes. That's the question.

That is the question, correct. And so, right. So the participation of the HLC, the HLC would be consulting on behalf of the board, and the board composition will be changing. Yeah, those are all that's all been brought up today in this meeting. There are points for consideration. Right. And one consideration point is whether, you know, who's going to be on the board when the application is before you.

Okay. Thank you.

I guess I have one more hypothetical. So assuming the county does not accept this invitation to engage, to participate, and assuming that I already believe that I am biased out on hearing this issue, does that basically free me up to say whatever I want outside of this process right now?

Well, first I would say it would be a matter of potential conflict. I don't know that I would use the word bias. But yes, if you would not be sitting, if you would be recusing yourself from the land use application consideration, then yes. Okay.

Thank you. So for clarity, who's going to be at the table starting already? So COID, State Historic Preservation Office, are those the two main partners? Because then it says potentially Bureau of Reclamation, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and the Coalition of Preserve. Who do we know is at the table?

I know that BPRD has responded and said they would be a consulting party. I don't know about the status of the other invitees. Gary might have more recent update than I do.

We have not heard back yet from Bureau of Reclamation or the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. At least it hasn't been passed by me yet from our cultural resource specialists.

And is there an invitation to a coalition to preserve historic Highland Butte Canal, the coalition? No. Yeah, probably residents.

My understanding is they have responded in the affirmative.

Yeah, okay. So, yeah, I would be comfortable not participating, knowing that the big land use is coming our way. And as soon as the goal discussion needs to happen, it'll be part of that. It'll be the input to it.

And to Commissioner Dare to return to your question, a future land use application, because it would be impacting the county's goal five program for the historic preservation would need to be reviewed by the HLC as well. So it's HLC is may have the similar kinds of issues. That's the concern.

I agree. You agree. Okay. There you go. To see from county legal, even though you used to be. Yes.

So, yeah, I mean, so I would lean toward declining the county participation and not decline wanting to be involved, but knowing that we're going to have to kind of jump over this step because it's coming our way anyways for a future board. So I'll make that motion unless there's any other discussion. Move to decline county participation in the consultation at this time with the letter as provided.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? A very engaging discussion. I know the residents that are on that canal are going to be right in the middle of this. And, you know, I support a vibrant discussion about how to proceed.

Okay.

With that, calling for the vote, Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Thank you.

Thanks for the discussion. Yeah, thank you. That letter provided in your packet, so I'll coordinate with Brenda to get that signed and off to Narciso.

Thank you, Tony.

Thanks to NRC.

One less thing on your plate for this fall. Yeah, doing that.

Thanks for joining us. Thank you.

Okay. Item number 13, Memorandum of Understanding with Saving Grace to Partner on a Grant Application for the Justice for Families Program.

Who is presenting this today?

Oh, that's right. Jen Patterson. I know that she was standing by.

I was here early this morning.

Maybe should we up to Steve and Dave? Since they're sitting here in the room. I'll grab her.

Okay. Okay. And if not, while we get her, I know we do have another matter. If the board wished to take up the final language, is that correct? If that's at the board, the board is acceptable to that as we get Jen. If that's acceptable to the chair and to the board, I don't want to get in your lane. Go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Oh, thank you. No order.

Twenty six zero thirty.

And that would need to be voted on and approved, which includes those exhibits. Also includes the map that you earlier approved. Obviously, the commissioners need to sign the order. Brenda will take care of that. We did prepare the SEL 805 in the explanatory statement for the vice chair's signature in light of the chair's position. Those would also need to be signed. I'll give Brenda the original document. If you're agreeable with those language changes, you're looking for a motion to approve order 2026030.

How many words did we end up in the explanatory?

The explanatory statement was 242 words.

Oh, halfway. Okay.

Halfway there.

All right. So we're good and we're okay on the other one?

And the SEL 805 was well within the word limits as well for the caption question and summary.

Okay. Thank you. Good. So do we have to have a new motion or can we?

Yeah, we need a motion now to approve. I don't believe we approved Order 2026030 previously, so that would be the motion.

Yeah, I think I had originally made the motion as discussed, but this is the final version of it, so I support making a vote again on that.

And I'll second that motion.

Was that a motion? There you go, yep. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Chair votes no.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you.

Thank you for being so timely back.

Okay. Now we can go to the MOU with Saving Grace.

Good morning, Commissioners. Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager. My apologies. I wasn't in the room a few minutes ago. Just here. Sorry, my computer is Not pulling it up, but I'm just here to present the MOU for saving grace for their space in the house. And Mike, I are building this isn't a year that they had the county currently and I'm taking point on this. It's on my level of expertise, but facilities and property management have reviewed and weighed in on the MOU. So we're just presenting it here before you for before we turn it over to Nick for final signature.

Okay.

Are there any questions about this MOU?

I'll just acknowledge it's a great service we're able to provide through the courts and supporting families and young children as they're going through everything they may be going through.

And as we talked about CASA yesterday, the fact that only 78% of the kids in foster care have an advocate. If you're out there in the public and you want something really rewarding, become a CASA.

Yeah. Um, Jen, I just was trying to figure out exactly what they were applying for funds for. I mean, this is a lot of good background on, you know, saving grace, what they're doing over in the Mike Meyer building in that space. But and I assume that, you know, basically, they're they're seeking financial support for for the work that they are doing over in that supervised visitation and safe exchange center space. But I just wanted to confirm that that was actually the case.

Yeah, let me, I'm just pulling up their email right now. I was not, apologies, I was not involved in the process. I got involved after they kind of submitted their grant application. So I'm just going through the email chain to see if it very specifically talks about what grant they were applying for.

Or what they're seeking funding for. They said what grant program they're pursuing, but.

Can you clarify your question? Okay.

What are they getting money, what work are they getting money to do?

Okay, I'm going to have to go back to them and get that clarification, but I will get that from them and send an email out to the entire commission board to follow up with that.

Yeah, but I mean, you know, the MOU is basically just about our continued partnership in that space.

Specifically the space that they use at the Mike Meyer building and the courthouse.

So I would love to know that later, but we don't need to know that right now for this, for deliberating on this MOU. Are there any other questions or comments? If not, I would entertain a motion.

Move approval of authorization for county administrator to sign the attached MOU with saving grace document number 2026-0604.

And I will second it. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Commissioner Adair?

Yes.

Commissioner DeBone?

Yes.

And Chair votes yes.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks. Many thanks again to Saving Grace for the important work they're doing in our community. All right. Next item, 14, Public Hearing and Emergency Adoption of Ordinance Number 2026-017 to Affect Updates to the County's HR Personnel Rules.

Thank you, commissioners. Good morning. For the record, Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale.

Susan DiGiotti, the HR Director for Deschutes County.

And we are before you this morning for a public hearing on updates to the personnel rules, ordinance number 2026017. We were before the board earlier this summer for a work session on July 6th, where we went over the proposed changes in the personnel rules. As the board will recall, the personnel rules were last updated in 2021. And at that time, they came out of county code and were memorialized separately, which should have modified the process by which the board updates the personnel rules. It would be done similar to how we handle policy updates. However, when that change occurred, it looks like we had an oversight of some language that was not removed that still requires us to go through this public hearing process to amend the personnel rules. So that is the reason why this process is slightly different than other processes you see with policy updates. We have, thanks to Legal's help, caught that language and removed it and updated it. So moving forward, updates to the county's personnel rules will follow a similar trajectory as policy updates.

Section 1.040 says you shall do it by ordinance, and now we're going to change it to resolution. I saw that. Thank you.

So, Chair, I'm happy to talk a little bit about the proposed updates that are included in these changes, or if the Board would prefer to have the public hearing before staff delivers remarks, that is fine as well. Your preference.

I think it would be great to get some of the highlights of what's being addressed through these changes.

Perfect i'm going to turn it over to Susan to give you a brief overview and then i'll talk a little bit about why staff is seeking emergency adoption on this ordinance and then we'll turn it over to you.

Thank you. Also, I just wanted to note to the board that the July 6th work session packet for the changes for the personnel rules section 1.040 did not reflect the red line changes to the ordinance, but we have made sure that the information we have is correct. Some of the changes that are proposed are amendments to align with current requirements, clarifying administrative authority and procedures, and modernizing the variety of provisions that we have. The proposed changes also include being consistent, reducing ambiguity, and formalizing several practices already used by the county. Several of the changes that we're recommending, including a lot of administrative edits, cleanup with wording that we use so that we're being consistent in how we're verbalizing what we're doing in our department, as well as some leave changes, adding language regarding paid leave Oregon, which was not currently in our personnel rules. Also adding bereavement leave for nonrepresented employees so that we're being consistent with what not represented employees are actually getting. We also added language regarding allowing PERS retirees to return to working if they wanted to, which was something that was changed in the laws recently, as well as changing the subsidy for health insurance for retirees so that they no longer will get the subsidy if they are hired after August 1st of 2026. We also added how we do pay equity reviews for all new hires, transfers, promotions, so that we can make sure that we're staying in alignment with the pay equity laws.

And I would just look to Kim, and we might want to verbally amend that date since we are now past August 1st. Do you feel like we're able to... do that and make that today's date of august 5th on the change related to health insurance premium subsidies for retirees and the higher date that would be impacted it feels like it would be cleaner for that to be a date that is um

It would need to obviously be from today's date or a future date for certain.

So I think, are we able to make that administrative clarification during this process, or would you prefer that we return? Sorry, as you were just giving that update, that flashed in my mind.

I just have a, like, what is the average length of employee stay now with Deschutes County? And then why did we have to remove all the exit interview in the document?

We are continuing the exit interview process. We're just making it a different process than we're currently doing. So we will continue to do it. It just won't be in the personnel rules. And as far as the average, it's last time I checked, which was a couple of months ago, the average is seven years.

So it's less than when I started. It used to be, I think, at nine. So now we're down to seven flat, seven basic.

Seven is the last time we checked was seven. That was just the average I had.

Okay. Okay. So it's not thin and black and white then for somebody, an exit. But we still do it.

We still do it, absolutely. And we're actually changing the process, so it'll be a little bit easier for people to participate.

Okay, because I was thinking we always learn something, don't we?

Do always learn something.

Maybe, if it does happen.

Yeah, we're hoping that the way we're changing it will make it better and make more people actually participate in the process than we're currently doing.

Warmer, nicer, okay. Okay.

So commissioners, I'm gonna, we're gonna bring this item back to you. And we're going to admin amend the August 1 date to reflect the date of your next meeting where we're able to have a public hearing so that we don't inadvertently have a retroactive date in a in something that you're considering, especially with the process that this is about to go through for your consideration. So I think we are going to return with this item and get it back on your agenda as soon as we're able to. Okay. Am I interpreting your nonverbal?

That's correct. Since we didn't open the public hearing, we don't have to continue the public hearing, right?

So we'll be back with an updated video. All right. Thank you for answering those questions. Thank you. Thank you.

We'll be ready next time. Whoa. All right. Okay. At this time, item number 15, Department Performance Measure Updates for Fiscal Year 26Q4.

Good afternoon. Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager. I'll just briefly introduce the topic, and then I'll turn it over to Jeff and Chris here. So each year, the commissioner set the goals and objectives for the county, and then the department had to go and establish plans performance measures based on those goals and objectives. Each quarter, one of the five or two of the five performance measures or goals and objectives are chosen and we bring departments before you to report out on the performance measures that fall under that goal. So for this is the last of the fiscal year 2026 performance measures. This is for quarter four that ended on June 30th, 2026 and the goals and objectives that were for Q4 was resilient county. So with that we have fair and expo and roads to provide performance measure updates and I will turn it over to Jeff and Chris.

Thanks, Jen. Jeff Curtis, director of County Fair and Expo. Just want to highlight the strategy related to this performance measure. It's kind of twofold. It's how we present the annual county fair to the public. And then the second phase is how we present the property and what we do the other 360 days of the year. So that's the broad based look at that as I take over, took over in February.

I think if I can say you're looking good after your first county fair on a Wednesday, a couple of days later.

Thank you very much, Commissioner. It's been a whirlwind than a whirlwind. I'm sure. Learned a lot. We have a great county fair for sure. And happy to look forward to debriefing you in more detail in the coming weeks from that. So specifically, I would like to just touch on a couple of strategy-based decisions that I think really marry well with this performance measurement. And that is to present our fair in a little bit of a different way, not just about live music and the wow factor of come see this artist. We made a conscious effort to showcase them from a visual standpoint, 4-H, animals, food, the integration of a community coming together as just a strategy standpoint. And also, we specifically are attempting to better brand the property when you see it. You saw Deschutes County Fair logos more. You saw flags with our brand on it. And while that marries with the corporate partners, it's a conscious effort to to the public to see this property as Deschutes Counties. And I think that was a part of our strategy. We also implemented a kind of a hybrid approach. We did not have an ad agency, third party, who frankly don't have less touch points with us, just they're hired to do their thing. We ultimately developed a hybrid strategy of in-house and a third party marketing strategists to help us develop strategies to move forward. And we saw some good results. A lot of it is very much from a result standpoint is about digital, increasing our Facebook users for sure. We created a YouTube channel that generated more than 134 unique video views, seeing the content of our fair. And ultimately we grew our Facebook followers by 3,800. So those are friends that we can communicate with and showcase our brand year round. And it was very much about the digital strategy from a public standpoint. From a partnership standpoint, which is also in this performance measurement, I will touch on one partnership, and that is our partnership with Les Schwab Tires, who we integrated into a partnership that created a champion's lounge on the fairgrounds just outside the barns. And the whole concept is to make these kids feel like they're champions and they're VIPs and have unique access. So part of their activation was just for them to go and get fresh water to sit down and relax and kind of like a green room for talent for these kids. And then the other part of it was the more public-facing part. And that's an effort to talk to our corporate partners and friends to integrate better, to showcase their brand, but also tied to our mission. From a year-round perspective, commissioners, that's a different approach. That's a longer-term strategy that I'm inheriting and ultimately developing. Specifically, a couple things are happening as we continue to go forward. And this may be not that different from prior director, but the city of Redmond Council appointed me to their destination Redmond advisory committee. And then just last week, Visit Central Oregon elected me to their board of directors. So I'll have direct discussions on a broad range, a more holistic look at what we're doing in Deschutes County and Central Oregon and uniquely position the property to be very present in those discussions and ultimately attract business and present ourselves in the light that we want to do so. A short-term thing that's already happening is we will be represented and be part of a group that's in Salem. The Salem Sports Commission combined with the Eugene Sports Commission is hosting what they call a FAM tour, which users from sports entities that produce sports events at facilities across the country are coming to Oregon. And we'll be able to, in partnership with those organizations, talk about our venue, the expo. the Expo Center specifically, and our event center as a potential site for events here in Central Oregon. That's one example. And last of this long-term look at this is to really kind of develop an overall brand and strategy And an outbound sales effort, which is an example of what I just talked about, is to recruit interested parties to use our facilities and bring business to the county that serves an economic boost, but also allow us to continue to perform from a financial standpoint. So that'll be a strategic effort to take more of a sales approach and not just to take in the business as someone calls us. and to recruit strategically the kind of business that we want from a year-round perspective. So that's and highlight the summary of where we stand. Happy to answer any questions that you might have.

I haven't seen the number yet, but do you have the gross for an FFA auction?

Great question. I have not seen a final number. We're having some preliminary discussions late on Saturday, but Commissioner, I've not heard that final number yet.

Because there was really only maybe 20 minutes in between the rodeo and that auction. And then the fact that we still have that auction starting at 10 a.m. and the gates don't open until 11. And I heard that beef sales were really, they were impacted by that. So, you know, that was set up before you got here, but we've got to do something to get that cleaned up. That's, you know, they've got a huge investment. They've got $2,500 into their steer to begin with. And then they've got their feed, another couple thousand. And, you know, if these kids aren't covering their costs, well, they're learning a really bitter pill early. But I would think we need to be able to do more.

I'll make a note of that, Commissioner.

Yeah. And if any of the showing or anything is going on before we open our front gates, I think that's really at a disadvantage. Honestly, maybe the fair gates need to open at 10 and not 11.

I understand that was the way it was done.

I know, but you've got to look at what's happening. And then I did mention that the sound in the beef barn is just obnoxiously awful and just it's really impactful on all those animals, the concert noise. So anyway, it's something that needs to be talked about in the near future.

Appreciate the feedback. I was able to get on and off the property without any problems Saturday afternoon and Saturday night. So it worked out well. Both parties here today are responsible for that one.

Yeah. Thank you.

I didn't leave. I didn't want to chance it.

Yeah.

Because I heard about people that did leave and come back on Saturday. And, yes, it was a challenge.

Great. Thank you. Good to see you. It'll be exciting to see how these new marketing approaches play out in the next year.

Do we have a number for total people visiting then? Do you have that number?

I do not have that yet. Okay.

No, but I mean, isn't that something that should be like immediately something accessible or not?

There's data points that I'm looking to collect. I won't be specific. There's specific, yes, there's scan numbers and then there's different groups that come on board that may or may not get scanned. So until I validate all the different data points, I'm not going to announce attendance yet. I've got to make sure I get the data points correct. I've got to also analyze how it was done before because prior management might have done it differently than me. So I want to make sure we do this carefully and right before I'm ready to publicly announce attendance.

Oh, and I guess you had never heard about the dirt and their arena. But South Point, who does equestrian events at the Wazoo, has six or seven different kinds of dirt they use. And then the cutting people, they're coming in, right, the end of the month, the cutters from Texas?

Two weeks, two and a half.

And how many horses do you know? Are they bringing in like 700 or 600 likes they did last year? Well, I know they want special dirt because they use a different, I think a sand-based dirt. And unfortunately, when I was watching the kids Sunday, you know, the battle of the kids, the first barrel racer totally wiped out. And yet I was there Saturday night and the ground looked like it was holding beautifully. So, you know, that didn't look like anybody got hurt. But, you know, it's really something to think about. Those cutting people, I know they're the sweetest people that come up. And I know they spend a lot of money in our community. So as nicely treated as we can do for them, I think it's really to the benefit that they keep coming here to Central Oregon every year. We got to get rid of the smoke. Because, yeah, nobody's going to want to really work their horse in a lot of smoke. So that's your job, right? Yeah. yeah get rid of the smoke in a minute thank you what date what are the dates of the cutting do you know uh august 21st i believe is when we're here they're coming okay that soon okay actually august on the final august 28th with julie takes the property earlier and takes about 10 days to 12 days to get it all set up okay so it's actually then august 28th then for like 10 days

10 days, correct.

Okay, good. Now, I know they're an enormous economic impact.

For sure.

Okay, I'll take that. Pause is my cue. Jump in. Let's round out the remainder of the fiscal year 26 performance measures talking about pavement. The two I've been asked to report on is our first performance measure of roads rated good or better with our goal of 96% rated good or better. That's an industry standard. A good road is a road that's pavement condition index is 70 or greater. And pleased to report that our score for this last year was 99.6. So pretty, you know, almost 100% of our roads are at PCI of 70 or For greater, our average PCI system-wide is 84, which is like we talk about in the budget meetings. It's that sweet spot where low-cost preventative maintenance treatments can be utilized, and we're not doing a lot of heavy reconstruction or structural overlays, things like that. We do still have those, but a fairly small number. Like that, our pavements are evaluated annually by a third party, and that usually occurs in the fall when the cracks are a little bit wider and can be more visually measured and observed. So we've met that performance measure. The second one to report on is more of a DOTI special, not necessarily an industry standard. Special. Yep. I like to give us a sense of really how much of our system we're touching annually with regards to pavement treatment or reconstruct or new overlay, something like that. So 14% is one-seventh of the system, which corresponds to really the interval of chip sealing. A chip seal typically lasts seven years. We do a majority of chip seal, but we also do slurry seal, mainline pavement overlay, of course. We do maintenance pre-level work where we're not doing a structural overlay of two to three inches of asphalt, but really just a thin layer to kind of correct some deformities and usually drainage issues. And then, of course, a paving that takes place with our capital construction work as well, capital projects. Most recently, in our last year of reporting, we hit 14.4%, so just right over the typical threshold. The last couple of years, we haven't quite met that due to just the nature of what's come up in the chip sale program and slurry sale program. But in part, we're, for the most part, hitting that goal of, again, touching our system with maintenance once every seven years.

All right. Any questions? This performance measure, it doesn't say per year in it, but that's so it's per year, 14% per year. Right. Yeah.

Okay. So who did 27th Street with the new gravel? Was that a Redmond City project that just did it like right before the fair? Because that's my back way to the fair.

Oh, it's in the city of Redmond. It would have been.

They did it?

It would have been a city contractor.

Okay. So we didn't do that for them. We did not. Okay. Yeah. No, I was like, I know. Anyway, I was going, well, that was brilliant. Yeah. No.

They are. Yeah. Oh, well.

Yeah.

Chip seals are, you know, it's our bread and butter. It's how we maintain our PCI at that level. It's a very rural treatment. Sometimes it doesn't play that well in urban environments. It can be a little rough. But for rural roads, absolutely, that's what gets us our biggest bang for the buck.

Unless it doesn't.

It always wins. Chip seal.

But didn't we have serious issues in sisters like a year or two ago?

Yeah, sometimes the environment can, in terms of heat, kind of can create havoc on that process. But as far as a maintenance treatment goes, it's the one that gets it done.

It's the bread and butter?

Yep. Okay.

Oh, Chris. Chris, these numbers are great. I want to kind of zoom out to the big picture revenue and available revenue and all the demands upon it. county roads for a moment and just, you know, ask, you know, we, a month or two or three ago, we were talking about how we were going to have to time out a bunch of projects in our CIP. And I think what we're looking at is kind of what we, you know, what we're prioritizing, you know, with these performance measures. So, you know, just so it's clear to everyone, the county prioritizes maintaining what we've got above average. doing these additional new projects that will provide really important service to our community, but which with the available revenue right now and the decline of our purchasing power for the revenue that we get, we just can't afford to do those projects at this moment.

Is that accurate? That's 100% correct. That's a philosophy. you know, that we've copyrighted, you know, for Deschutes County as it pertains to the, you know, the trickle down and the top three priorities of how we spend our funds. So I think personally, that's the philosophy that you have to stay disciplined to so that you can continue to to provide the lowest cost maintenance such that eventually, you know, when funding is restored, you know, you're actually winning on the project side because we've been able to keep it in good shape. It's not going to cost that much more to get it up to speed.

Yeah.

You're good. Thank you.

So I guess we can acknowledge earlier the agenda. We gave away 2.77 acres of the county fair today. But that is for transportation improvements to make the flow even better. So once again, thank you for doing the transportation management and planning for the fair itself. But there'll be a big roundabout there in the next year or two.

Hopefully less than a year.

I didn't want to commit to anybody else's schedule. I have no idea how long it is. We gave away 2.77 acres of the fair today.

When will that happen?

They were supposed to begin that project post-fair. That was a condition. Before the snow flies or winter. They owe us 35%. I don't know if you've seen those drawings. I haven't seen anything. They owe us specific drawings as the next step.

There you go. I will just point out there's a great article on the bottom of the front page of the Bulletin this morning about how to cruise pick the road, which roads to fix.

It's great. It's pretty much similar to the conversation we just had.

Which I think is very good. It's great that the media covered it and nice quotes and photo and good stuff.

Just think what you could do with the state of Oregon if you were in charge. Just think. Wouldn't that be fun? 35 more counties. You could do it. It would be great.

Oh, boy. Oh, yeah.

It's happy marriage, happy life.

I'm happier with us. There you go. Well, with that, we do not have any executive sessions for today, right? Are there any other items? Seeing none. Well, Nick, do we need to discuss the EDCO appointment?

I did not hear from a majority commission.

Sorry, not the ADCO appointment, the COIC appointment.

We can discuss it at a future date. We didn't add it to today's agenda, but I will just share with commissioners that the appointment concludes, the term ends at the end of this calendar year. And so it'll be a decision if the board wishes to to initiate a recruitment or make an appointment. Or, um, as I heard from COIC, if the board chooses to, um, forego an appointment until the, until 2027, that is acceptable as well.

And, uh, if we did make an appointment at this time, it would be a short-term appointment and it would just run until December.

Correct. Okay. To complete, to fill the term. Okay.

Um, Yeah, well, we can all have discussions with Nick in our one-on-ones about what we'd like to do about that, and maybe we'll bring it back at a future board meeting. Very good. With that, meeting adjourned. Thank you.