Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

One more blue sheet. Okay. Good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us today for this September 2nd, 2026 meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. We will now call the meeting to order and the first item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join us.

Next, we will review and modify, if necessary, the agenda and then approve the agenda. Are there any requests for additions, subtractions, or other changes?

It's been moved and seconded. Further discussion? Seeing none. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. All right. Now we are moving to citizen input. And I have three blue forms here. If there's anyone else in the room who would like to provide input during citizen input this morning, please fill out a blue form here. Or if you're online and would like to provide public comment, please raise your hand. your virtual hand online. First up, we have Sean Snyder. Good morning.

Thank you, Sean. I would say that if this disrespectful handling of a deceased person was happening inside the city of Bend, there's a good chance that it was Bend PD that was handling the situation. So I would encourage you to contact leaders from the city of Bend about that. We have, well, they do hold public comment for their meetings just like we do. So on

information i did not know that okay thank you um okay uh next oh i i do want to comment um sean i did call my contact at the state parks just to have him check in on uh smith rock what you were saying so i did call my person who um is i believe second in command of this oregon state parks just to have him check so thank you for um thank you for coming

And other county employees contacted the Forest Service about Phil's Trail after you visited us last time. Just so you know. Okay. Our next piece of citizen input is from Amy Sabadini.

Thank you. Thanks, Cindy. We've gotten a lot of written public comment from people about the item on our agenda this afternoon related to Quaze Energy. that their application or their request to be considered for a rural renewable energy development zone tax abatement. And just so everyone knows, the county in this case only has authority over that potential tax abatement. We do not have land use authority in this case. This is a project happening on Forest Service land. So the federal and state governments are doing all of the siting evaluation. And just so nobody thinks that we've got lots o

Is there anyone online with their hand raised? Okay. Then we can move on to commissioner announcements. Are there any commissioner announcements? We have at least one item that we decided to try to do under commissioner announcements today rather than schedule it for an agenda item in a couple of weeks. And that is an acknowledgement for the Cascades Futurity and Aged event. You know, I, I know that I know that some of my fellow commissioners are more, you know, more closely connected to this event.

Would you would you like to make an announcement? Come on. Okay. Yeah.

Yes, please. No, it's really wonderful talking to you this morning that we actually have more horses on ground than last year. And I've always heard that there are some of the kindest people that come to Deschutes County and they're here for what, 10 days, two weeks? Okay. Do you want to introduce yourself to the crowd then?

Tell us a little bit about being able to be a spectator.

For the event itself, for someone who wants to show up and see some horses.

Around a rainy day. Wonderful. Yeah, but it's a great family based horse event that's open. It's wonderful.

Okay, so I guess should I read this in? It said, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners acknowledges the Cascades Futurity and Aged event for showcasing agricultural and the thrilling ability of cowhorses and their riders, and for bringing many out-of-state visitors to Deschutes County every year since 2018 with significant economic impacts. And this was presented September 2 of 2026 by the Board of Commissioners. And also, I think it makes Mrs. Knight very happy because she is a sponsor. And I don't think the first interstate building has ever looked better than when the cutting is there

thank you thank you very much well great and thank you for joining us i know uh you know i've seen a lot of activity up and down the highway so fuel prices are biting us all right now but it's still happening which is very exciting so uh but then you get uh how many miles per bale of hay onto the horses too so we always joke about that so but thank you and welcome very exciting see out there well i will a couple of you first yes are you on the 11th commissioner would you like to we can sign this and hand it out for you yeah but we should right we should find it we'll bring it to you yes thank

I'll mention a couple of things. First off, tonight at COCC, Pacific Power is going to do a little overview presentation on their project blueprint project, which is a 500kV transmission line that will, under either of the two route options that are that are being considered pass through eastern Deschutes County a little bit to the east of Pine Mountain. So if anyone is interested in transmission line sighting issues or questions, that might be a good thing to check out. I'll also mention that the Public Health Advisory Board met yesterday and the primary topic that they heard about was how to

And speaking of smoke, I did have a call from the neighborhood regarding the fire. In the vicinity of the safe parking in Bend, I said, please let me know if anything happens that shouldn't be happening in your neighborhood. So we will be, I'm sure, discussing that later.

Yeah, and just so everyone knows, that fire, the ignition source has been identified. It's one of the nearby businesses. So, you know, anyone... Early on, there was, I think, some speculation that that fire may have been started by unauthorized camping homeless people or something like that. But it was just regular business activity at one of the nearby businesses that sparked that fire, just to be clear. Okay. With that, let's move on to the consent agenda.

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

A little bit of information. Item number two, approval of a lease with Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council on behalf of Core 3. So I'm on that core three board. The director, Beini, is going to be signing this document, just acknowledging that we're all kind of involved with these things at multiple angles. Also, yesterday, I was able to go to the managed camp that's on the ground out there. And this is going to empower a left turn because, of course, I took that left turn in a high-speed situation yesterday. And it's going to be exciting seeing that happen. COIC is having a board meeting

Little updates? Yeah, I would like to ask a question or two. if that's okay for us to do during consent agenda item discussion. Okay. So as we all know, the original intent with Core 3 was for this piece of county property to be transferred to COIC to manage and develop for the Core 3 facility. And that hasn't happened yet. And that's part of the reason we're working on this agreement right now or this lease in MOE right now. One thing I'm curious about is whether the county is continuing to carry costs because the land transfer hasn't happened yet. It seems like we are pretty involved in thin

So the cleanup costs will be covered by COIC with course refunding. But the staff time, the expenditures, is that being reimbursed as well? Or...

Thank you. Yeah, I mean, and that's not grounds to vote against this MOU and lease, but it is just an ongoing concern of mine is as long as this piece of property is technically in our ownership, even though it's intended for Core 3, we are expending precious staff time and resources to advance a very important project. Yeah, just something to keep an eye on for the future.

Understood. And then transfer-wise, there's the APEX report and the solid waste, World War II solid waste cells on there, environmental management of the old Rod and Gun Club. So there's like this gray area of why would I take it if these aren't mitigated? But, I mean, this is the action to be done. So it is kind of priming the pump for forward progress here, and this is the step, and I'm excited to get here. Okay.

Yeah, no, I just wanted to kind of take a microscope to a moment for, you know, what the county has invested and is continuing to invest to advance the Core 3 project.

Not only did we donate the land, but we're cleaning it up.

That works. Thank you. If there's no other questions, we can proceed to approving the consent agenda. So it was moved by you. Okay. Calling for the vote, Commissioner DeBone.

Okay. Calling for the vote, Commissioner Adair. And Commissioner DeBone. Yes. Chair votes yes. Thank you.

Okay, moving from our consent agenda to regular action items, item number five is a proclamation for Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. We have some county staff here to lead us on this proclamation. Thanks for joining us today.

Oh, in 2023? I mean, I just wondered, because I think, you know, we have a wonderful program available. And I just was wondering, are the numbers going down at all?

So did you say Northeast Jamieson? So that Northeast isn't here on this little memo.

And Caroline, you would point people to this 877 number before the 988 because it's a youth specific line.

Thank you. I just want to say thank you to our team here at Deschutes County and to all the members of the Central Oregon Suicide Prevention Alliance for the work you're doing every day to fight this epidemic in our nation and in our community. It is Without those resources, without the compassion and support, without the education and awareness, I'm sure that this problem would be even worse. So thank you for all the lives that you've helped to save. Are there any questions, comments before we look at this proclamation?

I have to say something. I've heard, because I know people that live out on the north end of our county line, that people are still jumping from there. And I know we have a small sign that says, please don't jump, please call. But maybe that needs to be looked at again. I just... I just have heard a couple of really sad stories from there.

It was just really sad when I heard my latest story from there. So we can do something more. Yeah, thanks. Thank you. Thank you for what you do, though.

Well, if we're ready to proceed to the proclamation, how about Commissioner Adair, would you like to read the first portion and the first three whereases and Commissioner Dubon, the second three, and then I'll wrap it up.

Before the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon Proclamation recognizing September as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. Whereas in 2024, more than 48,000 people in the United States die by suicide. Whereas in Deschutes County, approximately three people die by suicide each month. In Oregon, suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth ages 5 to 24. And each suicide death leaves a lasting impact on families, friends, loved ones, and the broader community. Whereas in Deschutes County, roughly 57% of all suicide deaths are by firearm. For young people ages 24 and under

Whereas many of the people who have died by suicide never receive effective behavioral health services for many reasons, including the stigma of using behavioral health treatment and the stigma associated with losing a loved one to suicide. Whereas far too many Deschutes County residents die by suicide each year. whereas Deschutes County is dedicated to partnering across community sectors to reduce suicide attempts, deaths, and the pain experienced by those affected. This is witnessed by recognizing suicide as a significant public health issue in Deschutes County and declaring suicide preventi

Now therefore be it resolved that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners do hereby designate the month of September and each year thereafter as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month in Deschutes County and urge the community to learn how they can help prevent suicide. Dated the second day of September 2026 by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.

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

So Carolyn and Bethany, thank you very much. And it is a community outreach umbrella discussion for everybody. So it's good to take a moment here at a public meeting, but it's welcoming anybody and everybody in our community to take a moment and think about this.

Thank you. Okay. Calling for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Thank you so much. We'll look forward to seeing you at some of those events.

I mean, there was something really going on.

Okay. At this time, we will move on to item number six, a public hearing for the Ajaros Plan Amendment and Zone Change of 64 acres at 68589 Highway 20 in your sisters to rezone the property from exclusive farm use to multiple use agricultural.

Right. This is the time and place set for a hearing regarding file numbers 247-26-000120-PA and 121-ZC. This is a hearing on a Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change request. Staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed now.

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

So for this specific application, I have no connections to the applicant. Obviously, I've been a city commissioner, city commissioner for a while and seen the big picture over time. But nothing to disclose and no conflicts of interest.

I have nothing to disclose and I also drive by this property probably almost every day.

I have nothing to disclose and I can proceed. At this time, does any party wish to challenge any commissioner based on ex-party contacts, biases, or conflicts? This is probably more relevant for the next hearing, but I would like to raise the question or concern of campaign contributions connected with parties to land use applications and quasi judicial processes. You all may recall that In the last couple of years, I was asked to recuse myself from a quasi-judicial proceeding based on campaign contributions I had received from one of the parties. And I think it does make sense if someone cont

Point of clarity. You started off saying you were asked to recuse yourself and then you finished with you chose to recuse yourself. Which was it?

Both. I was asked and then I made the choice to do so. I just want to raise that as an example. When I had received a campaign contribution from a party in a quasi-judicial process, I did recuse myself to avoid any appearance of bias. And I think that it's appropriate for all of us to consider the same. We can discuss that further at a later point. I'll put that out there now. And like I said, this may be more relevant in later hearing processes today. But otherwise, as no challenges are presented prior to opening the hearing, does anyone have any procedural objections to the public hearing? S

Do you have a question? The right hand corner way down here, this RR 10 land, when was that zoned that way? I will have to look at that and get back to you. Okay, because I know we've got this huge area up here that I drive by, but then I'm going, there's a lot of homes right down here, and I'm going, when did that happen? You know, it's out there.

So just a little bit of procedure. I did get your memo yesterday for this and was able to review that. The water attachment, I didn't go into detail on that, but I see what that is. And then also the emails. So as I say, I've been in that spot where it's kind of like this window of input coming as we open up these public hearings. There's a point in time where I've got all those emails and I brought my laptop if there's something that I have referenced to you that I just need to get electronically. So just being more prepared to have the latest information. And this is a public hearing open re

Thank you for responding to my request for a bigger area map. With zoning, I am not seeing the... I'm not seeing information on the city irrigated property that I asked about. Is there...

yeah no i saw that i just uh somehow i missed the city piece um okay thank you yeah thank you for providing all that all that information in response to my questions um are there any other questions or general comments before we begin

a couple notes uh you know so our minutes from june 1st which was on our agenda today we talk about our comprehensive plan and the pre-2000 and post-2000 uh exception lands so there you know it's just interesting that we have a couple paragraphs on that referring to the comprehensive plan so it's the bigger picture But also getting really grounded on the fact that the Destiny Court case said two acre minimum is urbanization. And then the BCL case, which is the solar panels east of Bend, is the case that defines the 10 acre comprehensive plan 3.3.1. So just getting real clear on these things th

All right. If there are no further comments or questions from commissioners, we can begin to take testimony. And the order will be applicant, persons in support, persons in opposition, applicant rebuttal, and then staff closing comments.

Did we ask him if there's anyone online that protested?

I did not. Sorry. uh kim so there was a question when i when i asked about whether um there were biases or conflicts or things like that you know i asked people in the room but okay thank you all right um so let us proceed with testimony from the applicant

There's a lot to these cases, a lot of paper to get sorted out and organized on the desk.

And just for anyone watching, basically, we're looking at a map that shows the zoning for properties in the vicinity of the subject property of this application.

Which was discussed at our work session, a request for this map. So that's how that came about. And you can turn on zoning and dial and see that same information.

Land Use Compatibility Statement from Deschutes County to Sisters. Correct. For their wastewater operations.

Oh just pardon me I didn't want to interrupt you I just have go ahead and finish your thought and then I'll.

So then 3.3.1 in 2011, when it was adopted in the comprehensive plan, was just the words, the minimum parcel size for a new rural residential lot shall be 10 acres. And it was post that acknowledgment that the west side transect zone effort came in. And it was a partnership by the property owners. It was the transect stepping out on the west side of end. So I was just acknowledging that it evolved, even since the acknowledgment of the original comprehensive plan version in 2011, to add that first half of that statement. Correct.

Could you be clear about the record period? Because we just dropped right into 777. Are you proposing something different?

I'm going to turn this over. There will be one cow and one calf.

Oh. Just touch it and see if it's hot. Maybe it's not, yeah. Maybe wiggle the... Yeah.

There's plenty of cord. Yeah, plenty of cord. You can bring it close.

Land Watch wrongly noted... Mr. Gnarros. Yes. We're a minute over. You're kind of allotted 30 minutes, so if you can please wrap it up.

Thank you. At this time, are there any questions for the applicant? I have a few, but you all proceed first.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony. I do have a few questions. I'm trying to get a better sense of what your intended use and development of the land will be. I heard a couple of things. I might have heard a proposed condition for an approval. I also heard no intention to subdivide the property. But then I heard no intentions to subdivide the property beyond, you know, making it into 10-acre lots. So I wanted to get clear on that. But can you just kind of give us a sense of what the intended use of this property is? And, you know, kind of the timing and sequence of land use processes that woul

Well, it would require farm use of the property, but you are in a farm worker dwelling is allowable in addition to the primary dwelling on an EFU zone property. So, I mean, there's no pathway. It would require farming, which you're arguing is not feasible on the property.

Putting a couple of the things that you've said together, would you be open to some kind of a condition that said basically one more dwelling you know in in the in the time frame between when this uh when this rezone occurs and when uh the city of sisters is interested in in absorbing this land into the urban growth boundary i'll just acknowledge that's one commissioner's idea here there is a three-person board that that's right it's only it's only my it's only my condition idea and um

Well, I guess I would say that given the pattern of land use decisions of this board of commissioners over the last x years, it may not seem very reasonable. But when the composition of the board of commissioners changes, that may be a very reasonable condition for people to be considering. OK. I do want to get into some questions about the potential farm use of the property. I really appreciate your work with regenerative ranchers, regenerative farmers who are interested in building soil. We do have the challenge locally that in a lot of areas the soil is shallow and doesn't have very much wa

I do want to question those estimates. You may be aware that there are, actually it's already passed, There has been legislation passed to allow farmers to explore split duty. So essentially, if you have four acre feet of water per acre of land, in the future, you would be able to... without without extinguishing without sorry without without following that that acre of land you would be able to use only two acre feet and lease the other two acre feet um for various purposes so um there i think it's very possible we will see scenarios in the future where um farmers are farmers have an allotmen

On the north side of the highway? Do you know how the ranch there is watering? Because they had their sprinklers on. I believe I saw them today.

But then you have the three sisters which is you've got the junior rights there and some of the people in that water have no more water and yet I'm seeing some sprinklers still running.

Okay then they're running them with wells then?

With a drought declaration, you are allowed to seek urgency pumping authority in an extreme drought year like we're experiencing this year. But there has been tremendous investments in and improvements in agricultural water use efficiency in the Three Sisters Irrigation District over the last 15 years, making it feasible for people to get water you know, this is a year where conceivably people would have gotten zero water and they have had a portion of a season, even in an extreme drought year. So it's This year is not necessarily a predictor of future year's water availability for agriculture

Let me assure you that no one is prejudging applications. I take the responsibility to evaluate these applications very seriously. I appreciate that. And that is why I look at all evidence with a critical eye on all sides of any issue.

I have, yeah. I'm sorry that I know something about water in the Deschutes Basin, but you can't unlearn that stuff.

Okay. Like I said, it is part of my job to evaluate evidence critically. I appreciate that. All right. Yeah, those were the key questions I had about agricultural suitability and about just kind of the vision for future land use. Thank you. OK. At this time, we will hear At this time, we will hear testimony from people in support of the application. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify in support? Kim, are there any hands raised online? Okay. hi i'm neither in support nor position but we're going to take the opportunity to be neutral okay well we were right we were at the brid

Thank you. Mr. Herman, thank you so much for your encapsulation of the struggles of applying Oregon land use law to areas in Deschutes County that are close in to our cities. It's always helpful to be reminded of the big picture. Okay. At this time, we'll move on to testimony in opposition to this application. And I believe I have one blue form. One blue form from Rory Isbell.

written testimony this is your 36 page one that's right okay um it's this is for the next one oh i think

I'll double check if there's anyone else who submitted a blue form who wants to testify during this hearing, please step on up as well.

I would like to hear. So consider this a question for me. I would like to hear your points or concerns about Goal 14.

Isn't a condition just curing a conflict that's being challenged? I mean, it's not legislative across the organization. It's curing a conflict that's being challenged by you, you know, parties. So you're trying to come up with the logic that we're changing the code or changing everything. It's really just curing something that's been brought up.

Based on what you just said, I was going to ask the question, what do you think about conditions to accomplish essentially preservation of land for future urbanization? I think I just heard the answer, but if you want to speak any further on that, go ahead.

And I have pushed for urban area reserves. They are cumbersome. I have also pushed for the county to consider some kind of an overlay in the near and vicinity around our cities. have not had we have not had uh critical massive support for um a policy like that on the board of commissioners up until now so um just trying to accomplish the goal uh however i can thank you for Thank you for your testimony.

One other note. You mentioned that the nitrogen in water being utilized by the city for crop growth. There's a clarity moment there because I did that for many years at a sewer pivot, southern Deschutes County, south of Sun River. There's non-detect for nitrates in the water. Maybe that's an assumption on your part, but it feels good to think, oh, good, there's probably some nutritional value in there. There usually isn't. I mean, the system works, the lagoon sits there for most of a year, the water goes out in the field, there's like nothing in it. So it was just an offhand statement you made

Let's not assume that that's what's happening there.

And I mean, just one more question about that. The city's wastewater supplies are, you know, their production of wastewater of treated wastewater. So, you know, the sisters the city of sisters is growing um where they're working on urban growth boundary expansion right now um i would expect that there would be a growth of their wastewater stream commensurate with that as is that um um does that match up with your understanding of the situation

As did the city of Prineville until they moved to a constructed treatment wetland.

thank you so much for the extra time as well thank you okay um so that was uh we've and there are there are no hands raised online kim oh there's one okay okay Ms. Kohler, whenever you're ready. Bye.

Okay. Kim, who else do we have online? Uh, Erica, um, we'll get the, the, the clock queued back up and then, um, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Ms. Mather. Is there anyone else in the room or online who is interested in providing public comment on this application? Seeing none, we can circle back to the applicant for a rebuttal.

Ms. Lewis, the arguments that we've heard that if the community wants agricultural land, they shouldn't put the cost burden on the property owner, I think is a real and meaningful concern and question to raise in the context of these resale applications. I do want to ask, One of the other ways to think about this is whether the community should bear the costs of enhanced property values when a property owner has their land rezoned. The applicant purchased this land as exclusive farm use zoned land. It was exclusive farm use zoned when it was purchased, eyes wide open. And now with this rezone

If I'm not mistaken, if the land is not being farmed, it does not receive EFU farm tax deferral.

I appreciate your concerns about water being inefficiently applied to farmland. And I would also say that there are processes for people to challenge the tax rate or the taxation of properties that aren't being farmed. We're having a wide-ranging discussion. As you said, maybe stuff that should not be in the record for a quasi-judicial land use application.

So this is not in farm tax deferral? This has not been in that?

It is in farm tax deferral. That's correct.

So you're doing some dry land grazing or something like that. Okay. That's interesting. Yeah. Are there any other questions for this rebuttal period? OK, with that, then we will now move to staff closing comments and discussion about continuing the hearing or moving to deliberations.

Before we do that, I just would like to make a comment in regards to Commissioner Chang's concerns over campaign contributions. And I do want to acknowledge unsolicited that Mr. Willits did give me a campaign contribution in the primary. So I just want to put that in the record. And yes, do I believe that I can be fair and impartial? Yes.

Okay. Well, we can get to that in a few minutes.

Irrigation district confirmed. It's within the geography of the irrigation. You know, it's within the district boundaries of the irrigation district. Not within the district boundaries. It's in the record. Not within...

Not in the, you said it's not in Three Sisters, correct? Correct.

But it was historically within, so the water rights that you had before, were those from the Three Sisters or the squawk, whatever it was called, irrigation district, or were they not?

Thank you, Caroline. Now to the discussion of... Now to the discussion of... how long we want to keep the record open and when we want to proceed to deliberations. Are there any requests or suggestions? were initial thoughts from commissioners. We heard a request from the applicant to keep the record open only for rebuttal testimony. We heard from Ms. Collarer that she would like the standard 777. Are there any additional thoughts from commissioners?

Is there a path for going to rebuttal and final argument instead of open record? Is that.. I mean procedurally I don't want to be challenged.

it would still be a 21 day open record oh so okay so you're proposing just no new evidence after we close a record here okay so that first 14 day period bottle making sure we're clear still be three week period 14 days and then seven for final argument not much evidence that would come in that wouldn't be a rebuttal given the breadth of every information that's in the record

I mean, I would say that this property and the property that's the subject of the next application are highly visible public places that I think that there's probably still people in our community who are just waking up to the fact that there is an application in um to um to rezone this or to do something with the land use of this property so i i'm hesitant to close the uh close the close up close this hearing off to new testimony just yet but that's just my my perspective It sounds like between the time when we heard that there was 300 submissions of testimony and today, there's been 100 more

I'm fine with that 777. So where does that put us? So where does it put us day-wise? Do we know that, Carolyn?

Good. Is there anything else for this hearing? We can proceed to the next one then. Thank you. Thank you very much.

We take a five-minute break to stand up.

Sure. Let's go ahead and do that and allow the staff, the next applicants, and everyone else a five-minute break. So please be back here at 10 to noon.

On to item number seven. This is the time and place set for a hearing regarding file numbers 247-25-000537-PA and 538-ZC. This is a hearing on a Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change request. At this time, staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed.

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

So I had set myself a reminder post-it note on this whole little file here. So I do have relationship I've met with and I know Mr. Willits, but in the 16 years I've been a commissioner, we've only seen each other maybe six times. I'm a known quantity, especially in this, you know, land use quasi-judicial world for the last 16 years. So I know that I can be, you know, fair and honest independent thinking on this, and I do not see there's a conflict. I know you've mentioned that already.

I didn't use the word conflict. Bias, I used the word.

Oh, thank you for correcting me. I'm sorry. I might have used the wrong word. But I feel I can proceed.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, I do live in the Sisters community, and I did receive an unsolicited contribution for my primary campaign from Mr. Willits. I do see him once in a while when I'm out having dinner in Sisters, and I do believe that I can be fair and impartial in this matter.

I have nothing to disclose. I can proceed. Does any party wish to challenge any commissioner, a member of this hearing's body, based on ex parte contacts, biases, or conflicts? I will restate that I believe that substantial campaign contributions present the potential for bias in quasi-judicial land use hearings and processes. I will remind my colleagues that Someone requested that I recuse myself from a recent quasi-judicial land use process based on campaign contributions to myself. And while I did not have to do that, and I could have made a strong argument that I could proceed without bias

so i'll just you know there's i'll just i'll put that forward right now and and you are free to respond to that well i just calculated what the contribution over my overall raising money is and it's point zero one so um i you know if you want to talk about

Do you want to tell us what that amount was?

It was $3,500, but I raised, you know, I raised over half a million. So it's minuscule.

It's all public information and again with our Orstar system. So it's not like there's anything. You look up my name, look up Orstar, you get all the information real fast, all the history from the last 16 years. So, I mean, let's proceed.

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.

OK. With that, are there any questions or comments before we proceed to testimony? Seeing none, the applicant may approach now and provide us with their testimony.

Thanks for that clarity. As I say, I wasn't seeing it like that. But yeah, if you take time to rebut, and then there'll just be something going back and forth in that first period.

I had to jump in there. So your letter talks about 543 gallons per week, and this was mentioned at a work session. Yes. Can you, was that a typo or what does that, what does that refer to? 543 gallons per week in the middle of your letter.

Yeah. Because 543 gallons a week is actually not that much.

Yeah. That's a family's day use. So, I mean, yeah, we're wondering.

Mr. Kobach, that last comment, are you saying that you think that this piece of property would be acquired by the city?

We actually had our county commissioners retreat at Five Pines two years in a row. And the commissioners from all over the state always compliment your resort. So thank you so much.

Mr. Willits, the vision that you just shared with us, would you be willing to put that into conditions for an approval of this property? Okay. some basically something the effect of you know when no development until this is brought into the city and then when that happens you know this is this is what we're looking at exclusive to lodging and the only thing else i would say is old house

I have one more question, but do either of you have any questions? Mr. Kobach, you brought up the lazy Z commercial use in conjunction with farm use. you know, as an example of, well, you know, if that kind of commercial use is consistent with agriculture, then, you know, why wouldn't something else be consistent with agriculture? And before I heard the intent or the vision for what you were thinking of doing with this property, eventually, I had a lot of questions about that because, you know, we are talking about rezoning land to MUA 10. that would allow, you know, two 20-acre parcels, each

Sorry, two 10-acre parcels, each of which could have a primary residence and probably also an ADU. And... I don't see that that is as reinforcing to local agriculture as the commercial use of meadery that basically does value-added production off of uh the agricultural you know produce of say the the the current lazy z ranch i mean i i i just wanted to to see if i was missing anything i mean do you uh do do you see the a connection between you know the potential mua use for for residential development and um and and you know strengthening or supporting surrounding agricultural uses

Okay, thank you. But I just wanted to take issue with, you know, this is no more impactful than the commercial use, because the commercial use is actually very reinforcing to the agriculture.

Well, I mean, in the prior hearing, you heard all my questions and concerns about agricultural viability, water availability, and things like that. I don't think I have to repeat any of those.

All right, is there anyone in the room? Is there anyone? Are there any hands raised online? We have a request from Mr. Herman to give a neutral statement.

Are there any other neutral statements? Kim, do you see any hands raised? Now to people giving testimony in opposition. I have one blue form from Carol McBath.

Okay. At this time, sorry, are there any more people who want to testify in opposition or online? Okay. At this time, applicant rebuttal.

I do have a question. Is this in farm tax reform? It is.

Well, real quick on that record moment there. Is words from a couple commissioners going to have legal merit there? I mean, it's just an open record period, rebuttal period, and final arguments. I understand you're saying let's not go back and forth during the open record period and then have to figure out rebuttal.

I guess what would the specific action be then? Because we ended up defaulting to 777 again in the previous.

Miss Macbeth raised her hand. I mean, you know, if we're if we're if we're kind of parsing this this procedural question, I think it's reasonable to ask to let other people hear anything about that.

Mr. Kovach, what do you think about adding to this?

Yeah, I mean, it seems like the kind of past practice is the precedent that everyone plans around and That's an argument for just sticking with the way that we've done 777 in the past.

Well, I mean, I think you could argue that whatever procedure we lay out, people will think about how to game it, right?

Well, a good discussion in front of us, and this is, you know, getting down to a little bit more meat about what's going on here. But, I mean, 777 is, you know.

You know, that's what we've been doing. Yeah. Right. So, thank you. Okay. At this time, staff closing comments.

um caroline you what you just suggested clarifying during the open record period that this piece you know what the city's wastewater can be treated wastewater can be used for is that something that we should request from the city or it's that homework that we can assign staff or

Okay. Now we understand whose homework that is. Thank you. Is there anything else for this public hearing before we move to our next agenda items? Okay. Thank you very much, Caroline and everyone involved. It is one o'clock we are we have exceeded the suggested timeframes for items on our agenda. We can either Do items eight and nine at this time, or we could hold those till we return from lunch recess? Is there a preference?

I'm sure glad I ate something for breakfast. Could have fainted.

I hear that. Okay. So at this time, we will adjourn for lunch recess and return the way that we wrote the agenda. We're returning at 1.45 p.m. Does that still sound okay to everyone?

If items eight and nine between them will only take 10 minutes, then I think maybe we still ask them to wait and just finish those up.

Thank you, everyone. We'll see. 2026-014, the last ranch plan amendment zone change remand application to change the comprehensive plan designation of a plus or minus 20.36 acres at 65100 North Highway 97 and 64994 Deschutes Market Road and 64975 Deschutes Pleasant Road and rezone the properties from exclusive farm use to rural industrial.

uh no questions just one uh on page four i think of our decision there's four e's in a row and i think it's supposed to be an ec so it's just a just a typo one s to an e it just jumped out at me as i was reading you know yeah that sounds like a typo i don't have it up right now yeah not a problem we correct that for the second reading sure yeah that's fine and then the um The EC is going to be part of this. The way it reads is it's included as a exhibit I, correct? And that's kind of a new norm for where we're at these days.

Oh, just acknowledging the heart-shaped garden out there with the big arrow in the middle of it, too. It took me until kind of the end of this thing to think, well, I don't know, is that a Goal 5 resource to see that thing that's been built out there? But it never came up. Okay. Okay.

I'll move approval of first reading of ordinance number 2026-014 by title only.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? I'll just say that I do not support this decision. I believe it eliminates agricultural land with senior water rights at a time where we need such lands that it provides inadequate protections for scenic resources. And that if this is one domino in a number of dominoes that will fall in that area, we will um to the upshot will be that we will have a massive rural industrial park at the uh junction of deschutes market road and highway 97. so just explaining my vote with that uh commissioner adair yes mr de bon yes and chair votes no thank you okay bef

Okay. For second reading. All right. And now item number nine, consideration of second reading of ordinance number 2026-015, Deschutes 2040 plan limited remand.

We missed you, Nicole. Hey, are there any questions or comments?

This is the second reading, so no other comments. I'll move approval of second reading of ordinance, probably by title only. Move approval of second reading of title only of ordinance number 2026-015. Oh yeah, it's the end of that statement.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Well, I will repeat that I think that this is an inadequate product. And I've given many reasons for why I think that in the past. No need to repeat them now. But I will be very interested in revisiting this comprehensive plan with a new board of commissioners in 2027. With that, if there's no further comments, we can proceed to the vote. It was, you made the motion. Commissioner Adair, sorry, Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And chair votes no. Thank you. Thanks.

And then I'll move to adopt ordinance number 2026-015.

Well, actually, should I do the second reading first before we?

Okay, before the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, an ordinance amending ordinance number 2025-007 and Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to adopt limited revisions on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals and superseding inconsistent portions of ordinance number 2024-007 only to the extent necessary. Ordinance number 2026-015. Okay.

And now I'll move to adopt ordinance number 26-015. I will second it.

Thank you for this work product. I know it's been a bumpy road since it was published, but even before that, it was lots of great outreach and discussions in the community. It is a big update for it. I was here for the 2011 comprehensive plan, and that was more the adoption my first year, so I didn't even have the big picture from before that, but I sure do now. And, yeah, I mean, there's moments. This is a moment in the state of Oregon's land use system, you know, 53 years into it, seeing that, hey, you know, we love it so much, we don't want anything to change, but probably things are going

OK, with that, any further questions or comments? Calling for the vote, Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. And Chair votes no. All right. Thank you. Now, on to item number 10, board discussion regarding Quays Energy's request for a five-year tax abatement through the, what does RREDZ stand for, the Rural Renewable Energy Development Zone program?

Are you going to get peppered with questions?

Just to understand real clear, so this is capital that would go on the ground at this site, and there's an estimate of $173 million, correct? I mean, so this is not property, real property tax, but capital assets. No, that one's not working. The middle one is on. Got to wiggle the wire or something. Did the middle one works?

I'm glad I asked that question. So the 173 is an estimate. Do people agree on that right now? Or I don't know.

And what I'm getting to is, is there a quick depreciation? Because this little table we have here shows the same number five years in a row.

We don't know if it'll go up or down even. Okay. See, that helps. Yeah. So it's just a number.

That's fine, though. So it's kind of a blurry number, but this is the scope of the number. It's... 100-something million, 1.75 million, 175 or 3 million or whatever. But I mean, that's just a starting point. I was trying to say it a different way.

So the assets that I assume would be claimed for accelerating depreciation at the federal level We don't understand how that plays into the taxable value within Deschutes County.

So I mean that, you know, many renewable energy projects, you know, in terms of their federal tax obligations, they claim accelerated depreciation of the energy project that they've built. And so I'm trying to kind of reconcile how that works with, I mean, this is just sort of an extension of Commissioner DeBone's question.

Thank you. So does this tax year start next year, even though they're not going to start commercial operation until 2030?

And an additional question about year one, year two, year three, year four, year five. There's an opportunity for additional local requirements. When would those start? Do those start in year four when the extended tax abatement kicks in? Or can those start in year one? Or... Do those not start until after year five?

Any additional local requirements, those would kick in in year four and five.

Okay. John, were you just raising your hand? Did you want to add anything to that?

Another question I have, just to get it out there, is are we representing Deschutes County's one tax rate here? Are we representing other jurisdictions by having this discussion? Because we've got countywide 9-1-1, but also there's the school district, the fire districts. And are we representing more than just Deschutes County here?

So like the sheriff's rates and the sheriff rural patrol and 911 are county wide rates. I mean, I guess I hadn't thought through all that yet. Yeah. But, I mean, it talks about $1.20 tax rate percentage. So that percentage point.

Got it. Okay. Just because that's close to our permanent rate, too. That's why the number wasn't real clear. Okay.

Thank you. Scott, so in our staff memo, you're showing the potential taxes owed if there's no abatement with a rate of 1.27826. I think that that's just our county general funds assessed.

12.7 would be the would be rate of all the districts.

And so within that 12.78, that for us, for the county, that includes the sheriff's office 911 and the county general fund?

Okay, so if that $12.78 covers DCSO, the Sheriff's Office 911, what was the third one I said? Sorry, the general fund. In addition to that, there would be tax abatement or tax liability to the school district?

Okay. And then after years four and five, the schools would get their full rate? Okay. Okay. Okay. And just for me to double check, so the funds, both that school support fee and then in the long run, the full tax payment, that is then turned over to the common school fund. They send it to Salem and then they get the percentage back. Is that accurate?

It's still basically like 3% of whatever we send to Salem comes back for the Ben Lepine School District.

Now, there's some other credits. That's not even as good as getting 3% of it. Right. Okay. Boy, that's interesting.

Okay. Additional questions? I have a few more, but... Go ahead. Other counties around the state we have seen have early experiences with big renewable energy developers and then learn from that in subsequent projects and maybe ask for different things. So I want to clarify that the tax abatement deal that we are working on right now, this would be for the first 50 megawatts. a project obsidian that that that quays is working on and subsequent projects would entail a whole nother tax abatement negotiation like another package is that correct yeah they they for now the

According to this, it says phase one is 20 and then phase two is 30. So you're just combining that together?

But if there was another 50 megawatts after Project Obsidian, then we would be back here doing some kind of a tax abatement negotiation. Yeah, that's correct. And my next question is, it sounded like Jen has some of this information already, but I was curious about, you know, other red zone projects in other counties and kind of what they had asked for in years four and five, you know, as local conditions or additional local requirements. And it sounded like you had at least one example that you were citing earlier.

And could you I was trying to write it down as you were going through those examples, starting with the first very first example, the first one said the first two were community service fees.

And we don't know the scope and scale of those dollars.

You know, I do wonder whether, you know, Business Oregon, you would hope would be a good source of information on this, but I'll circle back to CREA, Community Renewable Energy Association. I do wonder if through CREA we could get, you know, some of our fellow counties could share some information with us.

Well, even getting here today means that Project Obsidian is probably happening out there, right? And there's some drilling going on. So welcome and thank you for bringing this project to the area. There's a lot of history with the geothermal from 20, 50, and 100 years ago, understanding what Newbury Crater is. So, I mean, now we're at that point where there is a specific ask to go to a five-year abatement. And as you say, if we're representing multiple tax rates here, there's going to be other elected official groups that are going to be interested in knowing what's going on also.

Yeah. Yeah. No, I think it would be really important to have... uh other taxing districts you know being be part of this decision-making process whether we have like a a special hearing where we give them a chance to to come and uh discuss it with us and you know but we've often seen that people aren't really interested in tax exemption type type type issues but uh you know it's their money um i i think that that would be really valuable Patricia?

That's the portion of the royalty paid to the federal government.

Does it go through the state and then come to the county? Does the state take the 15%?

No, some of it comes to the state and some of it comes to the county.

And then is there a goal to have this done by the end of this year or into next year or anything? Is there a kind of horizon for implementing this?

Thank you. Yeah. And I would like to say, you know, I'm asking a lot of hard questions about tax abatement here, but, you know, I want you to understand I am very excited about this project. I am very excited about the generation of clean baseload energy and the value of that to our environment and to our climate. Very excited about the addition of, you know, this, you know, economic enterprise. uh, to our community. Um, at the same time, you know, many people in, in the community are asking, well, what is in this, what's in this for us? You know, there's say, um, a federal public land site. U

Yeah, but, you know, stays in Oregon is. But we're in Oregon. So you. So then that leads me to OK, so what are we? what are we giving in terms of tax abatement to support this very important project that we're really excited about? And what does the community get? And so that's, you know, I'm very interested and maybe in a minute here after we are done talking about the mechanics of how tax abatement works, we can turn to discussions of, you know, How the money would be used or what kind of special local allocations we might be asking for. But I'm particularly interested in that piece of the d

Well, it sounds like there's a five-year ask already, and by having this public meeting, we're talking about, okay, well, how are we going to get there? So that's what we're doing today. I want to acknowledge that the local value already is the economic activity, the revenue that's going to flow, the trades that are going to be employed, all the small support companies that are going to be showing support for all the activity that's going on. So let's acknowledge there'll be a burst of activity all around this thing, and that's going to be a lot of value for the community to start out with. As

mean i do want to say on roads you know the way that that oregon's uh system for funding roads and most other states um is set up right now is that um people who drive generate gas tax revenue and title and registration fees and then that that's what we use to pay for roads so i mean i i would expect there's gonna be a lot of there's gonna be a lot of driving to it from the from the site as part of this process and so we are receiving the gas tax benefit directly there.

The signal that's on the highway in Lapine, 1st Street, Deschutes County wrote a check. Well, it wasn't Deschutes County proper. It was economic development dollars from Lapine Industrial Group, $250,000 to help ODOT implement that project. So yeah, obviously, but to get prioritized and to really build a project, if we can write a check, it makes it happen. We've got an overpass down there that's abandoned and the whole town is standing by. Different topic, sorry, I'm bringing other stuff up. But the whole town's standing by and ODOT's not even focused on taking the next step on that, it sound

Well, we understand why we have a state transportation funding crisis right now, I think, at this point.

But I'm just pointing, we've written checks before. We did that lower bridge too, $10 million to make sure that happens. So that's exactly what I'm referring to, this scenario there.

Yeah, I can see how one of the differences between this and other developments where we charge system development charges, for example, is that this is federal land. So we would need to think of another way to address that since we don't have the typical SDC structure. Patricia, did you have a?

Hmm. Good to know. Okay. Any thoughts on five-year red zone tax abatement in any special local conditions?

Well, I'd like to see more of those details. It sounds like we've got a superficial fluff, as I would call it. And I would like to see some details from somebody that knows exactly what other people have done. And I think this is an excellent opportunity to do something. And then, of course, on the other side of it, I have a grandson that's studying nuclear. engineering in college and I'm hoping that you know Americans can go can acknowledge that nuclear really isn't that bad of a way to go to I mean we need to do a lot of things in power definitely this is a godsend for Central Oregon but the

Sounds like we have time if they really want this done by year end. I mean, we do have like a month to do some deeper research.

And is there clarity on the years we're talking about here? What is year one?

So I appreciate going and looking at what other communities have done, but you've seen one county, you've seen one county, and the needs that we have and the potential impacts, small as they might be, associated with this project are unique. I don't think any of our fellow counties are unique. Negotiating tax abatement for geothermal energy projects. We see wind and solar all over the place. So I think we can look to ourselves first. I have Commissioner DeBone just listed a couple of his initial thoughts. I have some initial thoughts and I'd like those included in whatever staff memo we come b

But that would be at the time of, that would basically kick in in like year four or five, right? No.

Yeah. So, I mean, there are going to be people employed by Quaze themselves. And that is awesome. And those requirements around those employees are awesome. And I think a lot of people were also asking about you know, the people who you will be using to build the project. And I'm, you know, I'm on those kinds of requirements. I'm sort of torn. I mean, there's a lot of things we really want to see get built and making it harder to build them is, um, It's introducing friction into the system. At the same time, the kinds of wage or benefit requirements that people are interested in seeing make a

Actually in our memo. But it says county wage job during the exemption period. So is that the five-year period that we're talking about? Or what is exactly the exemption period?

That last bullet is definitely what I was trying to get at. Again, trying to put conditions on construction contractors is tricky. My impression is that with these projects, that one of the key pieces is these complex drill rigs that nobody has those in Oregon. We can't reasonably expect a company to hunt down an Oregon contractor to do that drilling work if there's no drill rigs in Oregon.

Yeah, yeah. So that's why I'm kind of putting out this idea of, you know, benefits for the local building trades workforce. But, you know, I don't want to try to layer on conditions that are unfeasible, basically, or unreasonable.

The site operator, drill manager at the other operation. He was an Oregon resident that's been around the world drilling holes in the ground for a generation. And he was a local, not from Central Oregon, but from over the mountains. But he was an Oregon guy running the show up there. So that was real exciting to see.

Oh, well, yours from North Dakota? I was referring to Mazama's last year.

Those companies don't just send their rig. It comes with a crew of people, right? That's correct.

So if you can codify or provide a written explanation of how you work the magic and you give local preference, I think that's something worth considering putting into an agreement.

Well, it was interesting. At the airport, the $195 million project there, a couple of men that I was talking to all lived in Vancouver, Washington State. And I was just like, isn't that unfortunate that local people weren't doing that project? At least a couple that I talked to.

And so this is not 10,000 to 15,000 feet depth.

Okay. Are there any additional thoughts at this point?

Looking forward to, you know, kind of partnering here, working together, being real business-like, trying to get this done, turn it around before the end of the year. So we're kind of opening up this book right now. Yeah.

And to quote John Stark, we definitely need more energy. So 2030 sounds a long ways away. Oh, of course it will.

And we'll have assurances or reassuring information in between now and then as we see these projects under construction.

So back to the basics here. The ask is for a five-year abatement. Three years would be default, two years is extended. Can we deny that and say, nah, just give us the taxes after year three?

to go through right it's just the our red three-year tax abatement so i'm just thinking through the fact that there's a couple overlapping jurisdictions we're talking about other jurisdictions here it could get really interesting in the near future and then if it just gets really really exciting when we say well let's not do this and i'm just wondering do we have that inverse opportunity to say three years congratulations moving on Yep.

but yeah i think at any point in time until the board makes an official moment movement or motion to approve a four or five-year tax abatement and submit it to business oregon the board has the option to not entertain that but i'm just kind of getting back to the motivation of what you know so the you guys are asking for the five-year abatement and four and five is where the discussion is and it's an option for the for us to proceed with that i'm just just making sure that's the starting point okay and then when you say uh application so that's yeah is the app the applicant is quays at this po

And then does Quaze have any position on what may be on the table now? Because I'm just thinking there's going to be all kinds of great ideas that show up here. And all of a sudden, we're going to want to fund them for $100 million. And we're not even talking that. But any thoughts about this? It's a $2 million tax deferral, right? And then we heard 20 and 30 were some numbers from other projects. So that's a couple hundred thousand dollars. I don't know. I'm just trying to make sure we're in scope of what...

Yeah, that was the number I came up with, $3.736 million of tax abatement over years four and five. So, I mean, any requests for local investments needs to be far enough below that, that it's still a good deal to actually seek the year four and five tax abatement, but that sort of helps define the envelope that we're looking within. 3.8, which is- 3.736, yeah. All right, yeah.

Is there any starting point from Quay's point of view, or are you just happy to hear us discuss?

Well, I mean, to your earlier question, Jen, I think we can, you know, I see no reason why we can't just start negotiations or, you know, kind of drafting of an agreement and be working on these and kind of what is the additional increment of local benefit that we're talking about? You know, what is it, how much, and which years in the interim while that's being drafted up?

okay so yeah if i'm if i'm tracking correctly next we should uh have uh some additional discussions about the you know these these additional local requirements um and when we can uh when we can say with some level of granularity what's gonna what's gonna be there the the rest of the application just kind of falls into place don't hold until we have it okay so you've already kind of

Okay. Further thoughts? Lead with negotiations and yeah, we all need to... Let's do whatever we need to do to get to an agreed upon set of local conditions. Now, if that means, I mean, I think what we need before we get there, we do need a little bit more background, you know, on other counties. And, you know, I would like to see the ideas that were floated today kind of, you know, committed to paper as, you know, options on the menu as well. And then is there anything else?

I mean, I guess I would also ask Quaze, do you want to be here with us for that next discussion? Or do you want to visit after we have that discussion?

OK. Is that enough direction, Jen? Okay, very good. That's okay.

Don't you want it on the same day that we have the discussions with the public hearings so we can have a similar day? No, September 23rd.

Yeah. Well, just in case you wanted to do it, it is the 20th.

Yeah, actually, I'm just realizing now that I will be too. We're going to have to wrangle that with community development department later.

Okay, last but not least, item number 11.

Behavioral health HRSA grant limited duration position extension.

So that'll get us through this fiscal year. That's what the idea is.

According to your memo, you wrote that if Medicaid enrollment declines to 50%, that actually the county's Medicaid enrollment is between like 24% and 29%.

Yes. Okay. Talking about the general population.

Right. I just thought it was a bit misleading for. Yes. Gotcha. Yeah.

One question I have is, can you just give us an update? We haven't heard from the host team in a while. They haven't been in to speak with us. How big is the host team at this point? This one FTE, what percentage of the entire host team are we talking about?

So this is one-seventh of the hosting. It is. That's a lot.

Are there other people outside the hosting?

So the thought process at our budget this last year was this is a temporary position. It would be gone at the end of the calendar year. And now we're just kind of making that an extrapolation that we can bill enough to keep it.

I'll move approval to extend a limited duration 1.0 FTE Behavioral Health Specialist II position through June 30, 2027.

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

Did you guys hear the comments this morning about the person who died at the lighthouse? Okay. You might want to look it up and kind of get back to me. I was reading some of the comments I was reading online, and I just, you know, it just seemed disturbing. Yeah.

Okay. I was trying to leave time for additional questions or comments. If we're set to vote, Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Here we go. Thank you.

Okay. Have a good afternoon. Thanks for sticking with us. Ready long. Yes. Okay. With that, we are on to other items. Are there any other items?

UIC board meeting tomorrow night, which I mentioned, so that'll be getting the tri-county elected leadership together.

I'll just mention that the local public safety coordinating council met yesterday afternoon and reviewed, I never can get the name of that grant program right, the Justice Reinvestment Act grant recipients. So three of them provided presentations just on the work that they do and the impact of those grant funds.

And then Monday's Labor Day. So thank you to everybody making things flow, making it happen out there in all aspects. As I say, we've got great staff here at Deschutes County, but also just the people drilling on the side of Newberry and running the restaurants in town and just everybody. So let's celebrate the United States of America Labor.

And I just want to say that a very dynamic person of Oregon, Suzy Pape, passed away. And what's so really sad about that is that she was selected as a Grand Marshal for the Crooked River Roundup this year. And I know she was so thrilled. And she was not able to do that. And it's really too bad she wasn't, you know, she didn't get that experience. But she, you know, they have, I believe, 14 stores all over the Northwest.

um you know she a very dynamic woman so it's really tragedy for her family thank you um if there are no additional other items this meeting is adjourned thank you