Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for...

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for today's July 15th, 2026 meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. We will now call the meeting to order. And our first item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join us.

State seven. And to their colleagues. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. We'll now do a review of our agenda to assess whether there are any changes needed or whether we can proceed with the agenda as outlined.

I'll move the agenda approval.

And I will second it. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Calling for the vote, Commissioner Adair, Commissioner Bone. Yes. And chair votes yes. Okay. Next on our agenda is citizen input. So anyone who did not hear it earlier, if you're here in person and you'd like to provide public input this morning, please grab one of those blue forms over there and fill it out and bring it up to Brenda here. We will try to provide everyone with three minutes of time to give public comment. And if there is anyone online who is interested in giving public comment, we will take those folks with their hand raised after we get through the in-person public comment in the room.

Okay. Mr. Chair, point of order. So we have item number nine. I'm seeing the forums come in. We're going to have some comments about a ballot initiative that's being started by the Board of Commissioners. We've already had many public meetings on this. We've already had lots of opinions shared. And it's not a public hearing today on this matter. So I'm just acknowledging that it's kind of awkward to keep taking input from something that decision's already been made to proceed. We're going to discuss some wording of a document. So I'm

Well, under prior board chairship, people were not allowed to give comment on something that was on the agenda if it wasn't a public hearing. But it is my discretion as chair to provide people with the opportunity to give public comment on whatever they feel is important to them. And so that is the way we are going to conduct this meeting.

That's fine. As I say, we're trying to do the people's business. We are doing the people's business. So when we publish a public hearing on the matter, it says, oh, we need to make a decision. We'd like some help with this. Decisions already been made on this. I'm just acknowledging. And to keep going around in a circle on this, it's a shame. And I mean, I want to do good things for the electors, the people of Deschutes County. And we just have a big disconnect here.

Yeah, apparently we do. So let's give the people an opportunity to share with commissioners their perspectives. And then we can discuss item number nine when we come to it on the agenda. Okay. First, let me just call people up three at a time, and you can take your places, and we'll just go in that order, and then we can call up the next three to just make things a little bit more efficient. So we have James Thrower, Jordan Baxmer, and Jim McAllister. Please come on up and join us. And yeah, go ahead in that order. I believe those microphones are all on. Usually they're lit up either at the base or around the microphone tip. So James, Jordan, and Jim, go ahead.

Mr. Chang, thank you for allowing public comment this morning. This Board has shown a repeated pattern of making faulty, illegal decisions that are subsequently appealed and then overturned. The net result is a waste of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers. This doesn't even account for the money spent by individuals, organizations, Native American tribes, and others in their appeals. Some time ago, I reviewed a judge's decision in a land use appeal in a case that was decided by this board. He listed seven or eight items where this board ignored the law or showed faulty judgment. He literally took you out to the shed and gave you a whipping because you failed to account for the law. You're about to embark on another fiasco with this redistricting plan. It's certainly it's going to be appealed and it will result in a huge waste of money. Any of you who seek some kind of future office may as well hang a sign on your neck that says, I have poor judgment, I make illegal decisions, and I waste taxpayer money. Thank you.

So we're not redistricting. There's no districts. So just terminology, I've heard that a lot. So there's a proposed districting plan, not redistricting. Thank you.

Thank you for the correction.

Jordan. Thank you, Chair. Good morning to the board and all of my neighbors in attendance today. My name is Jordan Baxter. I am a lifetime resident of Bend and a Navy veteran, and I am a volunteer lead with Veterans for All Voters. We're a nonpartisan community of veterans from across the political spectrum whose mission it is to advocate for election reforms. And I'm here today to express my strong disapproval of any establishment of commissioner districts here in Deschutes County. The way I and many in the county see it is that two outgoing members of this board are trying to change the rules in the final hour. And the information about this map on the county's own website is, in my opinion, purposefully misleading. It claims that the board appointed community members to a nonpartisan map advisory committee. The chair of this committee is Neil Bryant, a former member of the Oregon State Senate who is a Republican. One of the appointed members is Andrew Kaza, who is the co-chair of the Independent Party of Oregon. Another appointed member is Melody Keebler, who is the mayor of Bend and a registered Democrat. And another appointed member is a former county commissioner and a Republican, Phil Henderson. All four of these members are public officials or have been in one capacity or another, and I do not think that they fully represent the interests of the community. And they are partisan, obviously, because they are Republican, independent, and Democrat. The fact that those in power get to even choose the committee members to draw the map is a huge conflict of interest in this process, let alone the party members' affiliation. This county has been making excellent strides towards having a more representative government. We made a step forward back in 2022 when we made our raises nonpartisan, and then another step forward in 2024 when we voted to expand the commission. um and this map and any map that carves out such a small geographic area will represent a huge set backwards my brother is a lifetime conservative and a ben resident he likely voted for commissioners adair and abone and debone in each election that he could approving a map would render his vote useless I'm here to fight for his vote as well as the growing LGBTQ population in Redmond. Those in favor of the map may argue that keeping at-large districts would cause Ben to essentially determine the results of every election, and to that point, I agree with you. So what we need is a system that ensures both that everyone has a voice and that the population of Bend does not overpower the rest of the county. And for that, I would strongly encourage you to consider a personal ranked choice voting system for deciding members of this board. Under such a system, we can ensure that Sisters and Lapine get the same voice as Bend. Thank you. Thank you, Jordan.

Just one comment. You know, this whole concept started for me personally representing the people of Deschutes County with multiple discussions following the going to five commissioners. The first few people I spoke to said, I want my commissioner. I voted yes because I want my commissioner. I said, oh, do you mean districts? Yeah, we just voted on it. But we didn't. We didn't vote to five districts. We voted on going to five. So this is just finishing the conversation. It's like we got three quarters of the way through a sentence and we stopped. That's all I'm doing here is trying to finish the sentence. And it's the will of the voters all we're setting up for, too.

Respectfully, Commissioner, I disagree. I was very educated on the expansion of the county commission.

Oh, yeah. I'm not referring to you. I'm referring to just, I mean, there was a lady at the senior center. She was so proud she voted for it. She says, yes, I want my commissioner. I was like, oh, yeah, but that's not what we're doing here. We're just expanding to five. So I'm just pointing out generally the voters I spoke to right afterwards. That's all I'm sharing.

Since we're adding history to public comment today, I will express that I, in principle, am a supporter of districting. I think it is a really good idea to have people from every part of the county representing those parts of the county on the Board of Commissioners. But Districting needs to be done right. And I am concerned that this district ballot measure with the MAPC that the DMACC developed is not done right and instead injects partisan bias into our commissioner elections.

Okay.

Thank you, Jordan. Jim. Jim.

Yeah, is this on? Good. My name is Commissioner Chang and other commissioners. My name is Jim McAllister. I'm a Deschutes County resident for 32 years, and I'm asking you plainly, pull MAPC. Don't put this in front of the voters. Start with the cost. A former Oregon deputy attorney general has warned this board that MAPC may violate the Oregon Constitution's equal vote guarantee. And put a number on it. Roughly $103,000 in litigation costs, even if the county wins. Over $250,000 if they lose. That's before you count what comes after November. Districting doesn't end at the ballot. This county is required to redraw these lines after every census, forever. New consultants, new hearings, new legal exposure on repeat. You're not asking voters to fund one map. You're asking them to permanently fund a recurring legal and administrative bill with no end date. Then look at who's making this call. Commissioner DeBone, you lost your primary in May. Commissioner Adair, you didn't even file to keep this seat. You're running for Congress instead. Neither of you will be on this board when districts take effect in January 2028. You'll cast a deciding 2-1 vote to lock in these lines, then leave someone else to defend them in court. Manage the redistricting fights and answer to voters under a map you designed. That's not leadership on your way out. That's a legacy vote with someone else's price tag. And Commissioner Adair, voters in your congressional race deserve to know that one of your final acts here may be locking in a contested, fiscally irresponsible, possibly unconstitutional map for the county you're asking to send you to Washington. And call this map what independent analysts have called it. Gerrymandered. Your own advisory committee split 4-3. Ben holds roughly half this county's population, yet the Princeton Gerrymandering Projects Review found Map C packs most of Ben's Democratic-leaning voters into just two of five districts, handing the other three and a board majority to areas that lean the opposite way. In a county that votes Democratic countywide, and it doesn't even meet your own standard, Your guidelines cap population deviation at 5% between the largest and smallest district. Map C comes in at 10%. Double your own limit. That's not a map reflecting this community. That's lines drawn to protect a majority in the districts, whatever happens countywide. This isn't a close call. Don't send voters a rigged, budget-busting map that its own authors won't be here to answer for. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. The next three blue forms are Mary Fleischman, Amy Sabadini, and Joe Craig.

My name is Mary Fleischman. Is this on? No.

It is. You might have to pull it a little closer.

My name is Mary Fleischman. I'm a 40-year resident of Bend. I'm here today to ask you to put on hold going forward with putting the redistricting map proposal on the November ballot. Right now you are looking at a draft ballot title in text. I think this should be put on hold until we have a new full commission of five. This whole process has been rushed, it's flawed, and both Commissioner and Commissioner Dubon and Adair are not running in the upcoming election, so it's a lame duck effort. This is not what the majority of the constituents want. Another thing I'm greatly concerned about is how Commissioner Dubon and Adair continue to rubber stamp rezoning of farm agricultural lands to high-end resort housing that does not help with our need for housing for people who actually work here or people who are trying to live here and work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mary. Amy? Amy?

Good morning commissioners. I'm Amy Sabadini. I'm 21 year resident of Bend and I have interests throughout the county because my in-laws live in one part and friends throughout so I'm here to ask you to press pause and not because districting is inherently wrong, because it is actually a very common thing, but because there is so much fearmongering and flaw in the process that happened here, and it is creating a very divisive moment in our county at a time we need to be coming together. There are so many common interests we have and Deschutes County is essential in the government solutions for our substance abuse disorders, making sure 911 responses are coordinated. We need to work together on disease tracking and prevention, on responding to drought and wildfire. We need to hold our sheriff's office accountable. Our property tax needs to be fairly assessed. Our landfill is at capacity. Our mule deer are getting hit on Highway 97 throughout the county. We need economic development for the whole region. Our housing needs to be built for working families that's affordable, and we all need transportation options. Instead of creating a divisive and parochial district map, let's work collaboratively to solve these problems. And I really urge you to press pause so we can have a proper charter process so that we could actually get some local rule and some thoughtful decision making about how the county commission runs. And I am sorry that you are being attacked for not representing the whole county because I do think watching the three of you, you do represent the whole county and you've done a good job of that. I think districting would make people a little less interested in the will of the whole county. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Joe Craig, and I'm a resident of Bend and opposed to the ballot issue on District Map C. Map C was built using the number of registered voters in each district instead of the population of each district. That violates the directives of the Secretary of State and appears contrary to state statute. The statute. District maps must be drawn so that the population in each district is approximately equal. For example, the Washington County Charter requires that the district populations be kept to a strict tolerance of each other. Variants cannot exceed 3% between the largest and the smallest district. It's already been brought up that your tolerance in this should have been 5%. and it's closer to 10% with some of the districts. A well-considered districting plan could easily reduce both risks. MAPC needlessly exposes the county to legal costs of approximately $250,000. Give Deschutes County what they voted for, five at-large commissioners, and stop wasting tax dollars on district mapping issue. Unlike you, Commissioner DeBone, I've talked to many people about this issue. I have not found one person that has said to me, I thought I voted for districts. I am hearing a lot of people that would like proportional ranked choice voting and other things, but that was not an option given to the committee. There was also not an option to have some at-large districts and some districts that were On the map, or at large positions, I should say, and then some districts. So within the guidelines given, I don't think it was fair. I don't think this will pass. I think it's a waste of county money. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Our next three blue forms, Michelle Bayard, Connie Peterson, and Melinda Soles.

Good morning. My name is Michel Bayard, and I've lived in Bend for 28 years. I totally agree with what Amy Sabatini said a minute ago. And for those reasons, I'm opposed to creating districts in 2017. But if those districts are created, I want to be sure that any matter that needs to be voted on in any district will be voted on by all five commissioners. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Monsieur.

good morning again uh commissioners de bone and adair and commissioner chang um i'm like that mole whack-a-mole that keeps popping up i'm the person who wrote a guest column that was published in the bulletin on august 1st 2025. at that point in time i was trying to alert the citizens of Deschutes County that this was coming. But I myself had a pretty open mind at that time. But I then attended every DMACC meeting in person, except for one, and that one I had to do online. I've watched this process unfold, and my concerns have just increased exponentially. We had a flawed process for forming this committee. we had a rushed process. It was based on flaw and potentially illegal use of data. And this map is potentially illegal. And Commissioner DeBone, I heard you say that it's too late. I'm sorry. Today is the day. And that's why I showed up again. Because last week, I watched as you passed a budget. And that was a surprisingly... It wasn't as contentious a process, but there were a lot of cuts, okay, necessary cuts. I understand that. So my basic, succinct question now is why, as lame duck commissioners, would you saddle the county with the almost guaranteed expense of defending a map that And again, I disagree with you. I came to every meeting. I do not think it is the majority of the constituents of Deschutes County that support this map, clearly object to. And I'm going to say the most immoderate thing that I have said in all of my public testimony are multiple emails to you, which were very detailed, very researched, very fact-based. Do you mean this ballot measure to be a final finger in the air to residents of Deschutes County? Because that's what it feels like. Thank you very much.

I'd say I'm sorry you feel that way. As I already mentioned, the fact that it's just kind of finishing what started. And that's where I started with this. Let's create a map. The map almost creates itself if you think about it. There's about 100,000 in Bend. You take 200,000 divided by five, right? 40,000. Bend has two seats. Redmond has one. Sisters plus rural. Lapine plus rural. The map almost creates itself.

look who is our current county commission. You're from Lapine. You're from Sisters. Mr. Chang is from Bend. Voters want representation, okay? I just don't think this map is the way to get there. I just don't think it is. And I'm 75 years old, and I've done many things in my life where I had to stop midstream and figure out, wow, is this the best path forward and change direction? That's being a grown up. Okay. And that's honestly how I feel about this. Thank you.

Thank you, Connie. Melinda.

hello my name is melinda souls i've lived in deschutes county in bend itself since 1991. i want to express my concern about this districting map from what i understand it's going to come before the courts it will be challenged it's going to cost a great deal of money and money that the taxpayers should not have to spend there's no reason to do this deschutes county has already spent so much money being having things challenged in court and why can't we just wait until there's another census, and then look at districting. I don't understand why it's happening now, and I think most voters don't understand what's going on. It's a very complicated map already. Lots of money has been spent in staff time looking at this map, doing it over and over again. And staff time could be better spent doing other things that are much more important. So I would like you to reconsider, and as Connie has said, it is okay to say I've made a mistake. Thank you.

Thank you, Melinda. Okay. The next three blue forms are Janet Stahl, Therese Collarer, and Paul Lipscomb.

janet oh i'll go first um thank you as many people have said the choice of this particular map is gerrymandered will um likely cost us a lot of money and it really is unfair and i think that um We should wait on this. I think it's like my friend said, kind of a middle finger to the county. Districts are fine, but this map is not. Thank you.

Thank you, Janet. Therese?

Good morning, chair Chang and commissioners I'm trees color from sisters. I am opposed to districting in the shoots County. I ask that you pull Map C from the November ballot. From a taxpayer point of view, this process has already cost a lot of money and used a lot of resources of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere. And it will continue on if you go down the path of putting this on the ballot. And as many people have said, perhaps leading to a legal challenge. The proposal, the whole idea of districting should be revisited in 2027 by the newly seated five-person commission. There's just no doubt in my mind that's the fair thing to do here. Personally, I would like all commissioners to be aware of all issues throughout the county. We're not talking about Los Angeles here. Deschutes County is still drivable and understandable by all five commissioners, in my opinion. Mr. DeBone, to your historical perspective point made a few minutes ago about voters being confused and some conflating going three to five with Districting, I haven't run across that in my conversations with people. But on several issues that I've been involved with, both locally in Sisters and at a county level, people do get easily confused about things they're voting on or that are under discussion. It is very common. And there is a lot of confusion about this particular issue. I agree with the previous comments made by many people who have talked today, especially Jim McAllister, Amy Sabadini. And again, I just would like to emphasize that I'm so happy that there's going to be five brains and five people involved in running the county. It's a big responsibility in a quickly changing county. So happy that there will be that many more resources, human resources, at work here and fully support the funding that allows for this to happen as far as them being paid. And I would just hope that as much energy can be spent as possible in solving the many, many problems and challenges of Deschutes County and the growth here and the disparity in income and housing, et cetera, versus this kind of what to date I have viewed as pretty political maneuvering.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. Commissioner DeBone, I understand your position that it's too late and our testimony today is meaningless because your decision and Ms. Adair's decision have already been made and you've made your desire to go ahead with the existing map quite clear. I would tell you it's never too late to do the right thing. And the right thing is to table this proposal before it goes to the voters. If you should be so lucky as to have the voters approve this, which I would suggest is quite doubtful, it will be overturned on a lawsuit, which will be very expensive for both sides. But there would be a lawsuit. Because the map is flawed legally, any districting must be based upon population, not upon registered voters. This process was flawed from the beginning because it was based on registered voter criteria rather than on population criteria. It will fail at the ballot, and if it passes, it will be overturned through a lawsuit. Again, it is never too late to do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you, Paul.

We have two more blue forms here. And if there's anyone else in the room who would like to provide public comment this morning, there are more blue forms over there. Next up, we have Matt Cyrus and Melanie Keebler. Two members of RDMAC. Mr. Cyrus, go ahead.

Thank you. Appreciate you taking comments. It's kind of a tough crowd. They didn't realize we were having a de novo hearing again on a topic that's been closed.

We're just doing public comment the way that we do before the meeting to allow citizens to provide their input.

Well, I appreciate that. And I just want to comment for the record that this process went through a significant amount of public comment. And in fact, there was public comment at every meeting that we held. A lot of discussion about map alternatives. The map that we finally ended up with was one that's very similar to one that was submitted by a member of the public at our very first meeting. And in fact, with the process that we went through, we came up with a map that I think is fair. It follows very nice tight lines, represents five different specific regions of the county, and I think it makes a lot of sense. And I appreciate the fact that the Board of Commission decided to put it on the ballot so that the voters can determine whether or not they want to move forward with this in November. Thank you.

Thank you. Morning, commissioners. Melanie Keebler, mayor of Bend here and member who participated on the DMACC. I just want to emphasize my opposition to placing this on the ballot for several reasons. You've heard from folks around the concerns that happened with the process. As someone who participated in the process and tried to participate in good faith, I agree that this was not the correct way to go about creating a map. And indeed, amid census districting is ill-advised for several reasons, one of which was the struggle with how to get accurate data in a fast-growing county. And sitting with my DMACC members and having arguments about my very own neighborhood and how fast it was growing, and how many people were going to be living there, and how many of them would be voters, and what that was going to mean for the map. And I disagree strongly that this map represents distinct regions of our county. What this map does ultimately is crack Bend into several districts while also packing Democratic voters in Bend into specific districts. And I don't think this map is fair for our county on several levels, one of them being you right now can vote for five commissioners. Every time we vote, we are voting for five commissioners on our staggered schedule. You get to vote for everybody. If this map were to pass, you get to vote for one. And if there are commissioners that you disagree with that are doing things that you don't think are right for the county or even your part of the county, you don't get a say unless you live in a specific district that's been defined by this map. I don't think that's right. And our committee was not allowed to explore other options like having one at large in four districts or doing things like the school district does where you have geographic districts, but the whole county votes for those commissioners. I'd be happy to explore those issues in a properly chartered commission that was looking at actually creating a charter for this county to talk about some of the issues that we're having. Because I think the populace here is ready to have a charter that actually lays out what we're doing, when we're doing, why we're doing it, instead of doing things ad hoc. And... And respectfully, I disagree that we are finishing what we started. Commissioner Dubon and Commissioner Adair, you haven't started anything. It was the voters who had to go amongst themselves and gather signatures to change governance in this county because you refused to start a charter committee or to refer things to the voters. That's why we had a grassroots effort to become a nonpartisan commission. That's why we had a grassroots effort to go to five commissioners because you did not start anything. So I disagree that you are finishing something that's been started. What you are doing is mitigating for what folks have changed in governance by inserting yourselves into a process to create a gerrymandered map. And I don't think that's fair to our county. I don't think it makes sense for a commissioner who has been recently spoken to by the voters by electing Jamie Collins decisively. And Jamie Collins being very vocal that he did not support these maps or districting at this time and that he wants to do a charter commission. The voters approved of that by electing Jamie to the commission. I think we should honor that. It is not too late to say, let's stop. Let's let our next commission that's actually going to be most recently elected by the voters make decisions around what the governance should look like in this county and engage in a proper process that actually talks to a representative group of this county and gets the proper amount of input so that we can make a fair map if that's what people want and talk about other ways to govern this county that's going to be best for all. Thank you.

Thank you. We received two more blue forms, Donna Lipscomb and Wanda. Thank you. And then we'll go to hands online.

Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak. I had not intended to speak today, but I feel compelled to respond to Commissioner DeBone's explanation for why he believes it's necessary to vote on the creation of districts in Deschutes County. In 2024, when the voters overwhelmingly approved increasing this commission to five members, they did not vote on whether to have districts. Districts were not included in the ballot measure, never mentioned, and it was not something that needed to be finished. It was finished. This is an effort to muddy the waters by trying to convince voters that this was already approved in some way, shape, or form, and that you are merely finishing the task. That is very far from the truth. This is a separate issue, a separate effort, and it is undeserving of this commission to try to confuse voters into approving something that they never intended. to have on the ballot. Thank you.

Thank you.

Wanda.

My name is Wanda Sobey-Gray. And from the first time I saw the map in the source paper, I was confused with how this could possibly work. And there was never any detail provided as to whether You would just elect your district's commissioner or vote to elect all five commissioners. Also, my feeling about having a commissioner that I can talk to, if a meeting is open and I can express my feelings to all five of them, it's just as good as having one person designated. And the other thing is, is does that one person have a larger vote for my district when issues come up that affect my district. I mean, it's a county. I think it's a whole county. And this is a very divisive issue. So I don't know how voters can even vote for this proposal without the details of how it's going to function down the road.

Thank you. To the question that you posed about whether people will be able to vote for all the commissioners or only one commissioner in the district that they live in, that is the way that this measure is written, that the county would be divided up into five districts and only people who live in a given district will be able to vote for that commissioner. that the candidates who are running in that district.

What about that district's, that commissioner's vote allocation on issues that affect my particular district?

Yeah. I mean, yeah, I, I, we can only speculate about how people, how districted commissioners would actually behave when they are elected to the, to the board. I mean, I, I personally think that if we had districted commissioner seats that the, the commissioner from the district where the roundabout was being discussed or where the, you know, the public safety issue was being discussed would, you know, there would be some degree of deference to the district, you know, to the commissioner from the district where the issue was occurring.

And is there any process for a district commissioner at large? We'll count you.

that this proposal does not include any at-large seats and um to the best of my knowledge there is no other ballot measure um proposing a structure that would include at-large measure out large seats being put before the voters at at this time thank you thank you okay well we received uh one more blue form uh phil henderson Please proceed.

Thank you, Commissioners. I wanted to come here today. It's remarkable now you can watch the testimony of a commission while you're at a doctor's appointment. So I got to see some of the testimony that's already gone on. I'm just here to support going forward with the steps you're going to plan to take today, which is come up with the title and the summary of what the ballot measure is. I think this has been a long process despite what people have testified to, et cetera. I was on the DMACC. I'm a 38-year resident of Deschutes County, a lawyer, a builder, and at one time county commissioner. I think that there are a lot of people that like the districts and want the opportunity to vote on the districts. I think that having districts has been advocated by many people when the five was being... five commissions were being passed, and so we're finishing that process. I think we want the right to vote on this in November. So many of the arguments I hear today are the arguments that they can make once you get it on the ballot. We will have a vigorous debate, I'm sure, about whether it's good or not and whether people want it. One of the things I wanna say, some comments were made about, well, Commissioner DeBone and Commissioner Adair are not gonna be here, so why should we be doing it? What they are, is they are representatives of rural areas in Deschutes County, which are the most concerned with not having districts. If the four Democrat commissioner candidates, the two that are, the current chair, Jamie Collins, Amy Sabadini, and Morgan Schmidt are all elected. We'll have four commissioners from the dead center of Bend trying to decide what happens in the rural parts of the county. 30% of the county live in unincorporated areas, roughly. The process was fair, thorough, and balanced when we created the districts. We looked at a lot of data. We considered a lot of things. As one of the commissioners says, it kind of was a natural, the way it wrote itself. We started with Redmond. That was one area. North County was kind of an area. South County. And it was really, if you honestly watch the things, we came down to just a few precincts, which one should be in different. It was balanced. Districts to me ensure that everyone is represented and it would be good. And we're not the first county to do this. When in 2006, there was an effort here to create a home rule, and it also had districts. Ed Fitch, the current mayor, was the leader of that. And if you look at the map from 2006, it's very similar to the map today in terms of what precincts are. Lane County had five commissioners starting in 1964. By 1976, they finally went to districts because they got tired of Eugene Controlling everything in in Lane County and Lane County is very similar to ours because they have a West zone that goes over to the coast. They have a South and East zone, which is down to Cottage Grove and places like that. And it's very balanced 2 in Eugene. 1 in Springfield and 2 in the rural areas. That's like, what we're trying to do here. So I'm in favor. I thank the commissioners that have had the courage to stand up to all the criticisms. all of the questions about the process, etc. I think it was done very fairly, and I think a lot of voters in Deschutes County will turn out to vote on it. We'll see what happens, but we should finish the process. Thank you.

Mr. Henderson, I do want to point out that the district map included in the 2006 ballot measure was not the same as the map that is being proposed here. And

We can debate that another time.

I know. And in 2006, there was more than 50,000 less people in Deschutes County distributed geographically in very different ways.

That's the point I'm making.

Thanks. Well, the point you're making is inaccurate and irrelevant. As much about this as you do. All right. Thank you. Bye-bye.

coming in the voting pamphlet from that major that they were going to use. So when he opposed,

I don't think so.

I just want to read, you know, there's been a lot of suggestion that districting wasn't part of the story. And yet, when I look back at the measures supporting the argument in the 2024 election pamphlet, the last paragraph, two statements by Commissioner Chang, let me read them, please. To quote, let's also think beyond this measure. Assigning commissioners to geographic districts would be a logical next step. Dedicating a commissioner to Redmond or South County, for example, would improve access, representation, and oversight there even more. Please vote yes on 9-173, and then push the county to assign commissioners to districts. So anyway, that is from the voter's pamphlet. When you say it wasn't there, it's the last two lines of Commissioner Chang's statement.

I know it didn't count. That was my argument. It wasn't part of the ballot measure language.

No. People read when they were voting for it.

They did read it. And if you would allow me to interpret for everyone my own words.

I just read them.

Play them out. Yeah. And as I said at the beginning of this public comment period, I, in principle, am a supporter of districting. I believe that it is important for every part of our county to have representation. And the way to do that is with a fair and unbalanced and ungerrymandered districting process, which is not what we have had. And so I'll add to what you what you just read that. A gerrymandered district process is worse than maintaining at-large positions. And we should wait for a un-gerrymandered district process in order to demonstrate our support for districting. Thank you.

just like to acknowledge and we've been down this path before it's it's exciting that we live in america we do have first amendment rights because you keep throwing out gerrymandering gerrymandering gerrymandering it's fine you can do that but as i say that's a point of view it's not everybody's point of view the map creates itself when you take two hundred methods i i i It works out pretty easy, and it was the first meeting that was provided by a person who wasn't on the mapping advisory committee.

So I'm just pointing out, it's pretty rough that you get to keep saying those words. Yeah. The Princeton gerrymandering project identified, you know, analyzed this map and said, this is gerrymandered.

I didn't realize Oregon, our districts that all go through, the four districts that go through Portland, what did they say about that?

Do two wrongs make a right? OK. And then I want to point to the analysis that was done by one of our constituents, Bryce Kellogg, using a very simple districting online tool. So Bryce plugged in all of the parameters that we gave to the DMACC and produced 20,000 possible maps that met those criteria. And of those 20,000 maps, only 8% provided as much partisan advantage as this map. So you can tell me that we didn't look at voter registration data for precincts when we drew these maps, but the chance of coming up with a partisan, biased, gerrymandered map like this out of the blue is 8% or less. 92% of possible maps were more fair and balanced than this map.

So as I say, we could be debating this to the end of time. The guidance to the DMACC was let's stay within precinct committee lines, the current lines. And there is support for going to a post-census update. So with what we had, it's simple. I mean, there's people thinking way deeper into this than I ever thought that we should even go.

92% of possible maps are not as gerrymandered as this.

Is there anyone online? Yes.

OK. Let's go to the online hands. Doreen. Whenever you're ready, Doreen.

Where did you call me? I'm sorry.

Yes. Is that you, Doreen? How about we try coming back to Doreen in a moment, and we go to the next hand. Who is that? Okay. Michelle, please go ahead.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Awesome. Hey, thank you. And I especially want to thank all the people in the room who showed up in person, and I echo all of their comments. I also secondly want to appreciate the words of Commissioner DeBone at the top of this meeting. His words were exactly doing the people's business. We are the people and we are here. We are here to call out that District Mount C is not the people's business. It is a partisan political personal power grab from Commissioner DeBone. I'll use those words again. We are here for the people's business. So our one county approved five at-large commissioners that we can all vote for. MAPC takes away representation. MAPC was gerrymandered to keep personal power by Commissioner DeBone and his pals. When Commissioner DeBone and Adair approved MAPC, the map that they set up a rigged panel to create, a gerrymandered map since we have free speech, it was designed for political power not to help the community, not to do the people's business. Our county approved those five at-large commissioners that we can all vote on. And we will continue to fight hard to resist this. We all want to vote for every commissioner seat. That is what we intended when we expanded that panel of commissioners. So our tax dollars should not be spent putting Commissioner DeBone's gerrymandered map on the November ballot to help a political power grab. Those of us knocking on doors in May saw the fruits of our labor. The results speak for themselves. The results that included a great primary voter turnout among those results. If this gerrymandered map is on the November ballot, we will fight even harder to send the unasked for district gerrymandered map packing. We'll send it packing. Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle. Kim, are there other hands raised? And let's try to circle back to Doreen.

This is Doreen. Was that an ask for me to speak?

Yes. If you'd like to speak, we saw your hand raised. Please go ahead now.

All right. Good morning, commissioners. Hello. Commissioner Chang, I really appreciate how you tried to stick up for our small farms and our land, and I want to speak on the Bend Airport. County residents, wildlife, outdoor spaces, and small farms can hardly go anywhere anymore without having one of these training planes over your head, whether you're at a lake, a river, a park, everywhere. So the highest courts have continually upheld the airport sponsors, and local government are responsible for the noise and pollution impacts from the airports. The city couldn't have done what they did without the board's sneaky approvals and scandalous interventions. I've repeatedly pointed out improper paperwork, including asking for a copy of the executed original master plan that was never provided to me. The records department never provided, but offered a huge fee to search for it. Instead, y'all found it quietly pushed through a 1970s or 80s master plan behind all the ones that you've done in the last couple of years. In other words, every impact, every growth, every part of what you've shoved down our throats, growing Bend Airport into one of the busiest airports in the state has been unconstitutional and illegal. There are two other airports within a few miles buffered and zoned for higher activity, but instead you chose to allow the lead poisoning of our small farms on the east side. You've undeniably allowed, if not promoted, people who dare complain to be terrorized with Flight schools getting maneuver waypoints pinned on their homes. Mere feet off our roofs hundreds of thousands of times annually. They failed to perform due diligence in protecting our rural East Bend community while protecting your donors in flight schools, which are mostly non-local students as well as a large number of foreign students. Why is our health, our nervous system, our cognition, our farmlands being sacrificed to flight schools led to pollution, killer noise, going until well past midnight, restarting at 4.30 to 5 in the morning, have full open throttle and hairpins and S-wheatening patterns for maximized noise. You've used lawfare to drive this through, knowing it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars and up to a decade to fight. And small farmers or either elderly or both can have a farm. It's lawfare. Wildlife corridors and plant and farm land protections were put in place as they were because the people who did it saw new food shortages. Right now, our cattle and wheat crops are already down to the lowest level since the 70s. But we now have more people, too, and more toxic foods. Add in the war with Iran, tripling our fertilizer costs and this historic ongoing drought. We need our small farms now more than ever. What you've done and continue to do to our farmland is quantifiably and classifiable as lawfare and economic warfare against farmers. I give you a lot of credit to Devon and Adair on expanding the wealth gap in Central Oregon by accommodating large developers and the extremely wealthiest request for unconstitutional rezoning nearly weekly. your legacy, maybe on your way out, instead of ensuring your friends and contributors destructive agendas are pushed through, you can reverse the killing of what made Central Oregon desirable and viable and do what you can do to reverse your legacy and promote healthy, livable Central Oregon communities, crops, and wildlife. Thank you.

Thank you, Doreen. Kim, are there any more hands on line? All right. Well, for folks who came to this meeting to make comments about that district ballot measure, I'll let you know that it is item number nine, but our consent agenda should proceed pretty quickly. And item number eight, I don't think is going to take a lot of deliberation and discussion. So we will get to item number nine if you are interested in sticking around for the deliberations. Not too far off. But otherwise, we'll wrap up public comment at this point and proceed with our regular agenda.

Mr. Chair, point of order. You mentioned deliberations. I mean, the decision was already made. This is just looking at the words on a form to follow through with the process we had already decided on.

Well, we will be deliberating on language. And I do think it is appropriate at every point along the way in this process to ask the question whether we actually want to proceed with it. And if you want to make those deliberations very brief and come out of the gate with a motion to move ahead, that is your prerogative. Okay. So are there any commissioner announcements before we move on to the consent agenda?

I'll be traveling next Monday, so we'll just have to look at agenda a little bit. So just for your information. And I mean, if it's priority, I could dial in, but I'll be remote.

From what I've heard, there are not that many agenda items for next week. So if we can push them to one meeting or the other, then we can try to work around that.

And then, yeah, I'll be remote for Wednesday, but I'll be available in a comfortable situation.

Okay. Good to know. Commissioner Adair, any announcements?

Tomorrow is the Sisters Economic Tour, if anyone's interested in signing up for that. It is a walking tour. It starts in the morning.

I'll just note that this week the Bend Climate Collective is doing a series of events focusing on topics from fire to our energy transition in our community that I have found pretty interesting. I got to participate in the wildfire discussion on Tuesday evening, and there's a few more events tonight, Thursday and Friday. Okay. If there are no additional commissioner announcements, then we can proceed to the consent agenda.

Oh, I did want to add one more thing. Sisters Coffee did have 15,000 visitors for the Quilt Festival last weekend. So, yes, 15,000. It was an incredibly busy, great weather weekend.

Good to know. Is there any discussion of the consent agenda, or do we have a motion?

I'll move it, Tara.

I will second it. The consent agenda has been moved and seconded. Further discussion?

I'd just like to acknowledge item number two is Oregon Health Authority Public Health Services contract, kind of a $5.3 million package. It is down a little bit, $48,000 from previous year, but it's just kind of a big document here. Then also the item number three, Neighbor Impact Partnership for groundwater protection. We're able to provide $100,000 for housing rehabilitation loan program, but I think it's intended for septic systems. Yes.

And I think I mentioned this on Monday. I did call Dr. Hathi because people in our program in Lapine didn't get funding from the grant announced last week, and neither did ClearPath, which used to be Hospice of Redmond. So I'm going to have a meeting with the state on how people locally will be able to be successful in their next grant allocation. So it was like $197 million that went out to the state. And it seems like some of our really good programs could have used some help.

Are you talking about the Rural Health Transformation Program?

Right, yes.

Now, since those $197 million are a modest replacement for the billions of dollars of Medicaid funding that Oregon will be receiving in the next couple of years, we want to make sure that our region gets as much out of that Rural Health Transformation Program as possible. Okay. If there's no further discussion, we can call for the vote on the consent agenda. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay. Action item number eight, consideration of first reading of ordinance 2026-013 for the Cinder Butte Plan Amendment and Zone Change Requests. Hi, Hallie.

Hello, good morning. Thank you, Chair Chang. For the record, Commissioners, my name is Hallie King, Senior Planner with Community Development. As the Chair noted, this is a first reading for Ordinance 2026 for Cinder Butte Rock Products Plan Amendment and Zone Change. As the Commissioners may recall, this application is affecting about 38 acres just north of the Redmond UGB at 395 Northwest Partial Way. The applicant has requested to change the zoning and comprehensive plan from surface mine to rural industrial. The applicant is pursuing the zone changes. They have exhausted all the mining resources on the property. In addition to, so the 30.88 acres is what we're looking at today with the ordinance. In addition to that, there's a companion intent to rezone request affecting a smaller portion of the property, 3.58 acres. The intent to rezone is effectively delays the zone change for up to 10 years. A little bit of a kind of procedural difference with those intent to rezone is those are recognized by the board via a resolution. And resolutions don't require a first reading. So we'll plan to bring that back with second reading of this ordinance so that they are adopted concurrently. And once the applicant is ready to act on their intent to rezone, that comes back as a full ordinance package when they're ready to effect that zone change. And so if the board recalls process-wise, at the board meeting on May 20th, the board voted to not call up this application for review and no appeals were received for the hearings officer decision. And because this is a surface mine zone and it's not a farm or forest zone, it does not require a de novo hearing before the board. And again, unless called up or appealed, the hearings officer decision becomes the final decision of the county. And so again, staff is back with the full ordinance and attachments for first reading. The ordinance package, again, is what we typically see, including legal descriptions, maps, and the comprehensive plan sections that will be amended with this ordinance. I do want to highlight something for the board. I provided a revised package on your desk. Excuse me. And just wanted to note, so in coordination with legal counsel, we made some changes to the ordinance language, including reference to the EC analysis, which is... Oops, sorry, let me get my notes here. Which is the economic, social, environmental, and energy analysis. Previously, our ordinances have just referred to this in the comp plan section. But we have, in coordination with legal counsel, determined that it's a more comprehensive ordinance package to reference that EC in the package.

Is that a site-specific EC or is it?

It is a site-specific EC, yes.

So when you say it's included here instead of in the comprehensive plan?

So there's a little bit of backstory, and I can maybe have legal counsel to address this. There is some information that's come out of a recent LUBA remand that has asked the question of, does the county need to further incorporate the EC into the adopting ordinances? And it's no new information. We've just specified the EC and included it as an exhibit. if that makes sense.

Well, you just mentioned instead of being in the comp plan, I was trying to figure that out.

Yeah. So typically we reference section 5.12 as just the ordinance number. And within that, the EC is sort of incorporated by that reference.

But it wouldn't be a site-specific EC if it was incorporated by reference for the comp plan. Is that correct?

I don't know if I'm understanding the question, but maybe Stephanie.

So person has some land. They want to do this. EC required.

Either we refer to the EC for the Goal 5 resources or it's a site-specific EC, I think is what I'm following.

Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel. So what we're referring to is the Destiny Court decision by LUBA. And in that case, it said, and I'm paraphrasing Luba here, you've got an existing EC and now you have this other one. You have to kind of like marry them together. So that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to say, okay, in addition to the EC, the site's specific one is also adopted. So it's a complete package.

So you could think of them as they do need to work together. They need to be one logic path through the whole EC and all the statements in both versions of them.

Right, right. It's just kind of completing, you know, rather than having site-specific ECs living, you know, reference-wise, you know, adjacent to the comprehensive plan, we're just making it clear.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

My real question about this is just about the city of Redmond. I just want to double-check again. This is immediately adjacent to the Redmond urban growth boundary, an area of very high growth, an area where we've seen a lot of growth. road infrastructure traffic concerns in recent years. And so I just want to double check that the city of Redmond had no input on this rezone application.

That is correct, Chair Chang. Yep, they were notified application and of the decision and did not have specific input. Certainly, I'm sure when the, you know, if and when the site develops, they'll also be notified as part of that land use process as well.

Okay. Any further questions?

So you didn't do it in red then, the changes you made to this? I did, Commissioner Adair. Yeah, it should be on page two. Two. OK. I see. OK. Back there.

Yep.

All right. Thank you so much. It was significant then.

And if there are no other questions, I mean, we'll plan and no other edits, we'll plan to return in two weeks for second reading.

Okay. But we would want to have a motion for first reading and then do the part I always forget, actually do the first reading before we plan for what happens next. Is there a motion?

I'll move approval of first reading of ordinance number 2026-013 by title only.

And I'll second it, referring to the attachment from this morning.

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

Just acknowledging Centribute plan amendment and zone change requests. So that's the topic instead of just the number.

Okay. Seeing no further discussion, we can call for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And chair votes yes.

Okay.

Now, the first reading. Before the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, in ordinance amending Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation for a portion of certain property from surface mine to rural industrial to and amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to change the zone designation for certain property from surface mining to rural industrial, Ordinance Number 2026-013. Okay. Thank you, Christmas. Thank you, Hallie. All right. On to item number nine, review of the draft SEL 805 form, ballot title, and measure text regarding the proposed establishment of commissioner districts. I believe Dave and possibly our county clerk are presenting this item to us or is Dave

Sure, I can tee it up, Commissioner. As you know, the board, by a two-to-one vote, previously directed staff to go ahead and move forward with preparing the appropriate documents to get this matter on the November ballot. So we've been working at that, and those documents have been submitted, provided to you. And we're going to need some level of direction on what you want the final language to read. So that we can move it forward to the clerk in due course. I believe August 14th is the magical date, but Steve's here and can confirm that one way or the other.

Good morning. For the record, Steve Dennison, County Clerk. And yes, I confirm the deadline to put a measure on the ballot for this November is August 14th.

So there's a requested ballot title document filled out, SEL 805. Is that the only work product for today that we sign that? Because then there's following. There will be a little bit more information about measure text because that was something that was pointed out to us.

Yeah, the measure text will be the change in county code. You'll recall a handful of years ago when we went to the nonpartisan, that was an initiative measure that came up from the voters, the electors, and so the district attorney prepared that ballot title and summary, and this tracks along with how the district attorney handled that. But yeah, this is the time we need direction from you folks on the caption, the question, the summary. We did provide... what the proposed code amendment would change in county code to reflect the fact that you have the districts and there would be the redistricting review every 10 years after the census. We also included the explanatory statement. There was a request that that be provided at this time. It's not due at this time. It's not due till September, but we did provide a very rough first draft, I suppose, of the explanatory statement.

So 805 is, yeah, the item for today. I do have some proposed word changes. I could edit it slightly, and that would be up to the three of us to kind of review and see if we want to change some words. I can hand out a proposed changes to each of us here. Just slight changes. Here's a couple extra. So as I say, we're looking at three parts here, caption, question, and summary. There's just a proposal that instead of adopts, go to establish. So we're voting on establishing five districts, five county commissioner districts. Just kind of a wordsmithing item. And then shall Deschutes County voters elect commissioners by geographic district instead of just Deschutes County? As I say, these are proposed. It does kind of fill it out just slightly. Any thoughts?

Adding the word voters to the question seems fine to me. I think adopts is an accurate explanation or description of the action being taken here.

As I say, there's not too many words there, so it's just a proposal.

I would just note on the voter issue, typically the word is electors, not voters. So I would suggest if you're going to insert that, that it be electors and not voters.

So I'll just shoot county electors elect. So then it kind of sounds funny after that, but yeah.

Generically, I think the clerk could speak to that, but typically we revert that population is generically identified more often than not as electors instead of voters.

That's correct.

Okay. It does seem, okay, using electors then. But yes, I think another word needs to be added there. Do we, are we within the parameters to add a word or two?

You have 175 words as a limit. So that to play with.

Including the caption and the question?

Oh, I'm sorry. Were you on the, you were on the question?

Yeah, they're still talking about the question. But 175 were a limit on the summary.

Correct. I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the summary question. And if you repeat that, then you're changing to adopt instead of elect? I don't support that change, but.

you know, what comes out of, what comes out of the board will probably be a two to one vote today anyway. So, um, so it's, uh, we can, I mean, we could vote on, we could vote on each, on each section if you'd all like.

Currently, I currently have 14 words. There's plenty of plenty.

Okay. So we have room there.

And as I say, I mean, this is just, uh, Trying to optimize the words we have here. So adopts or establishes, any thoughts, Commissioner Dare? Adopts is fine for me. So establish five Deschutes County Commissioner districts.

Right.

I will ask, you know, this word adopts versus establishes, mode versus method in the summary. I would like to ask Dave whether there are kind of legal understandings of the meaning of certain words and the use of certain words that we should be considering?

I think in this context, Commissioner Adopts establishes this is probably a non-issue method. Now, the ORS Chapter 203 speaks to the mode and requires that if you're going to change the mode of electing county commissioners, the voters have to be involved in that. So I would not recommend the word method. That doesn't track the ORS, the statutes.

So mode is a legal term. Okay.

And that's fine. So there's support for establishes. So then not using voters in that second line, I don't really like the idea of electors and elect all right after each other.

Either we don't do that or we rejigger it a little more even.

South Deschutes County elect commissioners by geographic districts. South Deschutes County electors elect commissioners by geographic district.

I think it works without the word voter or electors. I mean, people will understand what we're talking about.

As I say, if we're required... If voters isn't appropriate, that's fine.

Right. It's a bit redundant.

Okay. So we're not going to do anything there. And then keeping mode in is fine. As I say, it's being a legal term. Commissioners are presently elected at large, meaning every voter in the Deschutes County can vote for all five commissioner positions.

So there's that elector. The word elector again. So... It seems appropriate to keep the word elector in this case, just like we were discussing under the question.

Well, as I say, I mean, this is just some proposed ideas. So then adding the word Deschutes County. So if we keep elector, we'll read commissioners are presently elected at large, meaning every elector in Deschutes County can vote for off five commissioner positions. So if it's kept at large. So it's just adding Deschutes County.

Okay.

I mean, that, yeah, instead of the county, that's fine with me.

It's fine.

Approval of this measure. will establish instead of direct. I guess that doesn't, in red, the way the other one was, but establish that beginning. So yeah, establish, you know, we're starting something. I know there's a terminology saying, well, the voters are directing by their vote, but I mean, the approval of this measure will establish. That does seem kind of flows better for me. Because if we're already saying, if this passes, it shall establish.

I mean, these are, I mean, I think adopt and direct are accurate descriptions of what the voters are doing. So if the voters support this, they are adopting districts. If the voters approve this, they are directing that beginning into the 2028 election, we'll have districts.

And that's fine. So the rest of the sentence, though, may be interesting. I do support. So one commissioner will be elected from each of the five geographic districts shown on the included map, providing voters in each district with localized representation. So it just kind of fills out that sentence a little bit.

There's a lot of subtleties to that. I would like more than two minutes to think about it. So, I mean, if you want to make substantive changes, I think we put them, you know, we can consider them and we probably need to come back at a future session before I'm comfortable. Because, you know, that has... we're getting into things that could have a lot of different meanings. And I'd like to think about all of those before we proceed.

So the next statement says the five proposed districts generally include District 1, West Bend, District 2, East Bend, District 3, Redmond and surrounding areas, District 4, Southern Deschutes County, including Lapine, and District 5, Northern Deschutes County, including Sister. So that is a

statement about you know kind of the words about the what the map shows that's approximately 34 words just do we have room for that i had done a word count i didn't have it handy with me right now but at a quick glance it looks like it's roughly 150 so um getting close to the limit but certainly some area to move things around okay

And then wordsmithing on the last one, candidates for each commissioner position. So as I say, right in the middle there, and it sounds like it is a statement, providing voters in each district with localized representation. That is a substantive statement.

Yeah, that's an opinion statement. That is not a factual statement.

Well- I think it's both.

I mean, you can't say it's not that. I think it's a loaded phrase, right? That's a persuasive statement. It's not a simple statement of fact. Because the, you know, I would argue that people get localized representation right now. Within a 3000 square mile county. So I yeah, this is this is a loaded statement that I think I think introduces bias into what's supposed to be objectively neutral.

As I say, I mean, we've got plenty of energy on this topic already. So, I'm not, I don't need to push for that one. So, if providing voters in each district with localized representation can be removed, can be struck from this proposal and then looks like we may have some pretty common ground.

Well, I think it's good to list the five regions.

Yeah, that's just a kind of, in words, a representation of the general concept.

Yeah, but I don't think it's... I don't think these geographies are... I particularly am concerned about district number five, which is, you know, it is northern Deschutes County minus Redmond. And northern, it really, I mean, there was an opportunity to basically say, that there would be a district that covered northwestern Deschutes County. But for, you know, whatever reasons, the DMACC chose to stick Terrebonne with sisters. Terrebonne, who sends their kids to school in Redmond, who goes to their jobs in Redmond, who goes to the hospital in Redmond, who shops for their groceries in Redmond. So, you know, that's, I think, geographically, one of the most important concerns that I think people will have with this map. And, you know, that's just not the right way to describe what's going on in the northern half of the county. So if you want to come up with other language, you know, because Northern Deschutes County, you know, the bulk of the people who live in Northern Deschutes County live in Redmond, so you have to, if you want to use words to describe these districts, you have to give an accurate description. I think the map pretty clearly Pretty clearly reflects everything that you're trying to say with these words. So I don't know whether you just want to let the map speak for itself. But if you want to use words, we have to describe what's going on in northern Deschutes County differently. I also think that, you know, Southern Deschutes County, you know, if you want to describe District 4 as Southern Deschutes County, probably there's more people who live in the city of Bend in District 4 than live in Lapine. Right. that description should acknowledge or recognize that there's a whole lot of people who live in the city of Bend in District 4 as well. These descriptions I think are problematic.

So this is a concise statement, you know, three lines. I've touched it. And as soon as you touch one thing, because I'm like, well, the Pine Sun River, well, Sun River Black or Sisters Blackfeet Ranch. As soon as you touch it, it just doesn't fall apart. So this is a concise little statement. You know, either we support it or we don't. I mean, as I said. Because you can go on all day long kind of debating all the parts and pieces around it. It's just a statement included that kind of...

I would rather have no statement than oversimplification. That's just my perspective.

So as a...

It invites, you know, you know... I think it invites, you know, if if you're if you're trying to get people past their their challenges of this ballot measure, it just invite. It's another it's just another thing for people to fight about. Like you didn't accurately describe me.

And there's not a lot of common ground on this, no matter what we do. So I support including the statement as provided. As I say, we've scratched out the item right before it.

It's not about, we're not haggling, right? It's not like, oh, I let that one go. But it's going to be two to one no matter what.

Speak as much as you want to speak, but it's going to be two to one no matter what.

Okay. I am trying to spare you an additional point that people are going to challenge you on. But if you want to do that, then that's your choice.

So you're looking out for my best interest.

If this needs to go to the ballot, I want it to be as accurate and neutral as possible. And like I said, this is not an accurate statement. All right.

If it would be possible to add, and Northern Deschutes County, including Sisters and Terrebonne, I'm just wondering how many words we're going to be at if we just actually added Terrebonne to that.

Honestly, I've lost track of exactly. I know. I'll review it as submitted.

So we're going to have to come back and see where our words are at then, correct?

Yes.

Of course. We do have until you said the 14th.

August 14th.

And we don't want to do it at the last minute. So, okay.

And Jen?

Yeah, good afternoon or good morning, Commissioner. Jen Patterson, Strategic Editions Manager. It was pointed out to me in the back from people who were reviewing the updated submitted language that the descriptions of the locations of the maps are out of order. So I would also just recommend changing that. District 1 is actually East Bend district. No, we need to make sure that's right. Yeah. District two is West Bend. So I just wanted to put that point of clarification. If you were going to make a vote on that.

Oh, absolutely. Thank you so much.

Well, thank you to the ladies in the back.

Yeah, there we go. Well, okay. So, I mean, big picture, I'm, um, I'm supporting proceeding, putting this in front of the voters, you know, once again, from what we've heard today. But we did start off with the fact that this is just following on to the decision we had made previously. So there's some proposed edits here. You know, Commissioner Dare, you're talking about... So when I looked at that statement, I thought, okay, Lapine's an incorporated city, Cister's an incorporated city, and that's why I would stop there. Because, you know, Tumalo, Terrebonne, Blackbeard Ranch, Sun River, Eagle Crest, you know, it just keeps going. So it was just kind of holding out of the incorporated city of Cister's in the North County, incorporated city of Cister's in Lapine area.

But then the thousands of people from the city of Bend who live in proposed District 4 are not being recognized in the description of District 4.

Oh, then we could add it, Southeast Bend and Sun River. You know, if we do have the words, possible.

Well, as I say, I mean, and now I would almost lean towards not doing it because why wouldn't you put in Black Butte Ranch or Eagle Crest?

Or juniper preserve.

I mean, it's just tricky. Tumalo, terabyte. We just start listing everybody and everything. And the edge of bed.

If you have the words, then that certainly makes it more accurate.

Yeah, I'd see if we have the words.

Okay, well, and that's fine.

Maybe there's those that we can eliminate.

So then who's wordsmithing? Because this is a product of the Board of Commissioners. It's not the clerk's job to wordsmith. It's not, you know, legal can support us, but we need to do it.

Dave's listening. I think you want to include Ann Terrebonne at the end of District 5. And then you had made something about adding Bend, I believe.

Southeast Bend and Sun River.

So southern Deschutes County, including... Sun River. Well, you wanted to say South East Bend. Right. That's what it is. South East Bend, comma, Sun River. And Lapine. And Lapine.

Yeah.

Okay. I mean, if there's a majority vote on this, we can certainly make this language occur. And if we have an issue with the word count, we'll schedule it and come on back, I guess. If we're within the word count, then we wouldn't need to come back if you vote on it today. Okay. But I would need some clarity before you do that. I'm still unclear on the captioner. So if you're going to go establish instead of adopt, I think that need to be made clear. I think you were comfortable sticking with mode and elector instead of method and voter. And then I think you said you're going to scratch the clause at the end there with regard to localized representation and just have an end under the included map. Right. Okay. And then you wanted the changes you directed, including fixing District 1 and 2 so they read correctly, adding Southeast Bend, Sun River and to District 4 and adding Terrebonne at the end of District 5. Correct. And then I'm assuming you wanted, I think you folks were agreeable with just leaving it or having it read candidates for each commissioner position. At each. Okay. as opposed to commissioner positions. So that's what I show. That's what I'm tracking anyway.

And I'm supportive of that. I don't know if we can do.

I wasn't clear on is the adopts or the establishes in the caption. It seemed like initially you wanted to switch it, then maybe you didn't. So again, I hope your motion, we need some clarity. So I'm clear on that.

You know, I'd like to let you all kind of tinker with this language to the extent that you want. And then before we vote on the language, I do want to raise the question of whether we want to proceed with this ballot measure at all. Are you done wordsmithing the statement itself?

Yes, and I would like to use the word establishes, and it sounds like we have enough clarity to proceed on a final version. It's not going to be printed right now, but we can get it reformatted. So I'd like to lean into proving it.

We can vote on that after we discuss whether we want to proceed with this at all.

So now you're the chairperson trying to create another question, and I'm not going to follow on this because I've already determined I am going to proceed.

Well, you can make a motion and then I can just raise my concerns during deliberations if you want. But the questions I want to ask about whether we want to proceed or not will be asked today. And there's no procedural way for you to prevent that. So it's up to you. Do we want to talk about them now, or do you want to make your motion first?

Are you referring to this SEL 805 document wording that we just discussed as in the motion?

I believe that that is the motion that Dave is seeking.

So, yeah, I'll move approval of the SEL 805 request for ballot title with edits as discussed.

Can we just, just for clarity, because this is hyper-political. So we're going to scratch adopts and put in establishes in the caption. Yes. We're going to leave the question as it was. Yes. We're going to... Leave mode. In the first paragraph, we're going to retain mode and not add method. Towards the end of that, we're going to retain elector and not add voter. And also in that paragraph, we're going to, instead of stating the county, we're going to have it simply read Deschutes County.

Yes.

And then in the next paragraph, well, in the next section, approval of this measure will establish instead of direct. Is that what you're asking?

I guess I lost track here. So approval of measure will, oh, yeah, I could see. Yeah, it wasn't in red. That's why I was. Establish. Yep.

So at least, yes. It was established. Yep, got it. The beginning with the 2020 election. One commissioner will be elected from each of the five geographic districts shown on the included map.

Correct.

And then not include that last clause. Agreed. Okay. And then with the clarifications on the district descriptions, which again, apparently number one is actually number two and two is number one. So we'll fix that. And with regard to number four, Southern Deschutes County, Southeast Bend, Sun River, and Lapine, including Southeast Bend, Sun River, and Lapine. And then on five, it'll be Northern Deschutes County, including Sisters and Terrebonne. And then in the last section, candidates for each commissioner position as opposed to commissioner positions. That's what I show the changes that you folks have directed. So if that's what your motion is, maybe you could just make sure that's clear.

You want to say so moved? Yeah, so so moved as clarified. Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. We can move on to deliberation. So at this point, I do want to ask the question whether we want to proceed with this ballot measure or not. In my opinion, a better way of asking the people what they want would be to run an election where we have multiple ballot measures side by side. A proposed five-district ballot measure alongside a proposed four-district seat and one at-large chair ballot measure alongside a district ballot measure that has the Missoula model, where commissioners will be elected from districts, but by all of the voters. Every voter would get to vote for every commissioner seat. We can even put alongside all of this the proportional ranked choice voting proposal that a number of people in the community are excited about right now. In so doing, we would clearly be presenting to people what all of their choices actually are rather than shoving one option in their face and saying take it or leave it and then trying to manipulate sentiment around the desirability of districts to get a specific proposal passed. To do that, to put all of those measures side by side, we would either need to have four more ballot measures that we sponsored to give people that choice in this cycle, which we don't have a lot of time to do, or we would need to wait for a future cycle. And that's, I think, the most... If we really want to give people a choice and we want them to clearly understand what their choices are, I think that that is the fairest way, the way that honors democracy the most, that we could proceed with this. So that'll be a reason why I vote no on this language and on any future votes on whether this is going to the voters or not in November, why I will likely be voting no, unless we want to put four other ballot measures right next to it to give people a real choice. I also want to dig in a little bit to the questions about legal challenges to the county and how much this might cost us. We have heard speculation about litigation. If we move forward with this ballot measure, we've heard potential price tags in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would like to ask county legal counsel whether you believe that legal challenge is likely as this ballot measure moves forward.

I'd like to just call for the vote here. If you want to have this discussion following this, we are in the middle of a motion.

We are in the middle of deliberation on a motion, and this is all relevant deliberation to that motion. So since I am sitting in the chair right now, chair position right now. I think I get to evaluate whether we're proceeding with deliberations or whether we are moving to a vote.

And as a sitting member of this body, I just ask for consideration of that vote.

I think I could best answer it. A number of folks have indicated they plan to file legal challenges. I've heard that here today. I've heard it in the prior public hearings. And so I have no reason not to doubt them. A number of them are lawyer types and judge types and people that certainly know how to do litigation and legal challenges. So I would anticipate, yeah, there'll probably be some sort of a challenge to the ballot title. And if that doesn't succeed, I would expect there'd probably be some sort of challenge after the election should it pass. So yeah, in my mind, that's going to be a workload allocation in my department that we'll have to deal with.

And, you know, I'm not going to ask you for your opinions on the merits of various legal challenges, but I would love to hear your thoughts on what you think the likely legal challenges are going to be to this ballot measure.

Well, there's limitations on what can be challenged on a ballot title. And, you know, essentially... That comes down to, and I did a little research yesterday, it's controlled by ORS Chapter 250. It's actually .195, and essentially that the ballot title is filed as insufficient, not concise, or unfair. That's something someone in a black robe at the circuit court would ultimately determine. So... You know, reasonable minds probably can differ on on whether the ballot title meets that standard or not. I know myself and the clerk and our attempts to draft it as neutral as we could. We made every effort to make sure it wasn't it didn't lack being concise and certainly wasn't tried didn't try to make it be unfair in any manner. But yeah, someone in a black robe will decide that. And so that would be that process. And then if it were to pass, there's challenge options on that too. The statutes provide for that. There's a number of bases that you can go after to challenge it after the fact. I believe it's ORS Chapter 258 that controls those challenges after an election. And so, yeah, there'd be any number of legal bases for folks to try to challenge it. I mean, you could look... And nationally, I mean, there's usually a decent amount of litigation associated with redistricting. And this is just kind of the predecessor to redistricting. It's districting. So one could assume there is a chance, high likelihood of some sort of challenge that tends to kind of go hand in hand with any type of districting, redistricting. It just seems to be the way of the process. Yeah. you know, I think any type of districting is inherently has some political overtones to it, regardless of how neutral or clean and pure the people involved in it, you know, may or may not be. It just, it does that. It triggers that with people. Um, and so I, I, that tends to lead to legal challenges. So, but as far as, you know, what the exact basis would be and whatnot, that'll be up to the folks that challenge it to how they capture that and articulate that. And, um, I've been involved with two of these in 30 some odd years. And in both times, the judge sent us in a, actually the second time was the gas tax measure here in Bend many years ago. And the city and the opponent and myself on behalf of the county clerk at the time sat in a conference room and hammered out some language that was acceptable. And so that didn't go any further. I had one years ago in Polk County, the judge sent us into a conference room, said, figure it out. Because if you don't, I will. And we hammered out some language that both sides could live with in about an hour. And that was that. So I don't know what would happen here. I don't know how the circuit court over here would handle it if they just lock us in a room and say, come up with language that both sides could live with. Or obviously, if they can't, then that person in a black robe is going to make the decision.

OK.

Thank you, Dave. Yeah. Further deliberations.

Just acknowledging that column for the question, a little bit of procedure, Robert's rules of order, when there's five commissioners in the future, the three of us have no more or less authority than another. So it's kind of a rude statement to saying I'm the chair and I'm going to do it the way I want to do it. We all have equal authority here.

Yeah, but the chair progresses the meeting as they see appropriate. And you have sat in the chair position many years and exercised that judgment. And if you don't like it, I'm just going to say too bad. Okay. So I mean, I will just say that I would implore my fellow commissioners not to proceed with this ballot measure. It was the DMACC was problematically constituted. The process was flawed. We relied on numbers of registered voters more than total population. The differences in total population among the districts is substantial. 92% of possible districts did not provide the kind of partisan advantage, disproportionate partisan advantage that this proposal does. So I both predict that this will be defeated at the ballot and that there will be legal challenges and I would just encourage you to spare all of us that whole drama and cost in the next six months as the people of Deschutes County are trying to focus their attention on a whole lot of other very important elections in our community. But that's all I have to say. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Calling for the vote on the district ballot title and text. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And chair votes no. Thank you. Okay. We can now proceed to other items. For anyone who is joining us for the district ballot measure item, you're welcome to stay. And you're also welcome, if you want to get on to other things, to head out now. All right. Are there any other items?

We're going to talk about the explanatory statement in a week or two.

Yeah, or staff can go forward, generate, send it. So yeah, we can, in light of this, what we'll do is we'll go ahead and use you folks directed. Steve will make sure that the word counts correct. If it isn't, we'll bring that back to you. If it's correct, then the 805 is done. And then with regard to the And then the question was about the explanatory statement, and the answer is that that's not due until sometime in September. So we have a working draft, and we'll bring that back to the county commissioners probably next week or two when you folks meet. to try to get some more clarity on that, especially in light of the changes that were directed today to the 805 form. And I did say that the clerk's going to make sure the word count is appropriate. And if it is, then the 805 will go forward. If not, then it'll have to come back for the board to make more adjustments to meet the word count. I don't think the word count's going to be an issue, but Steve needs to, he's the official word count guy. Great.

Thank you.

Okay. All right. Now we can proceed to other items. Are there any other items?

Sun River-Lapine Economic Development Board meeting yesterday afternoon in Sun River. Kind of summertime, so it's a slow activity time. But there's incubator building and spec building going up in the city of Lapine. So there will be some space for startups and small businesses here in the next six, eight months, which is pretty darn exciting. And then also July 1st, the... Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the Lapine Clinic building, a multi-story building. You know, Certificate of Occupancy means, you know, construction is complete and the public can get into that building. I don't know that it's being implemented yet, but it's coming around the corner. So it's just exciting to know that that building's done.

Great. Good to hear. Commissioner Adair, any other items?

No.

Okay. Yeah, and I have no other items at this time. Do we have any executive sessions for today? No. With that, meeting adjourned. Thank you all.